Slashdot Mirror


Poor US Infrastructure Threatens the Cloud

snydeq writes "Thanks to state-sponsored cable/phone duopolies, U.S. broadband stays slow and expensive — and will probably impede cloud adoption, writes Andrew C. Oliver. 'As a patriotic American, I find the current political atmosphere where telecom lobbyists set the agenda to be a nightmare. All over the world, high-end fiber is being deployed while powerful monopolies in the United States work to prevent it from coming here,' Oliver writes. 'I expect that cloud adoption will closely match broadband speed, cost, and availability curves. Those companies living in countries where the broadband monopoly is protected will adopt the cloud at a slower rate than those with competitive markets and municipal fiber. There's a good chance U.S. firms will fall into that group.'"

123 of 177 comments (clear)

  1. Don't worry by blackpaw · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here in Australia we just elected in a right wing government, they are intent on fucking up our Broadband network as well to protect entrenched interests such as Murdock and Foxtel, so you're not alone.

    1. Re:Don't worry by Capsaicin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Here in Australia we just elected in a right wing government, they are intent on fucking up our Broadband network as well to protect entrenched interests such as Murdock [sic] and [sic] Foxtel, so you're not alone.

      From the PoV of established media players, the threat of to-the-home-fibre, that the erstwhile Labor govt was implementing, as opposed to the fibre-to-the-node, copper-to-the-home system we will now be getting, is that it would further to erode traditional business models. The traditional producer-consumer relationship is already strained by the self-publication the web, via blogs and social media, has introduced. Reproducing this on a hardware level with a network of peers replacing a company servers - consumer clients model ramps this up to a whole new level.

      The requirements of vested interests play well into the lack of scientific/technological awareness of Abbott and many of colleagues (excluding Turnbull obviously).

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    2. Re:Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I agree since Murdoch acquired Fox Entertainment in 2005, it has gone downhill. I think the last funny episode of the Simpsons was made back then. Pretty much have to be a complete idiot to find it funny anymore. Same thing with American Dad. Can't stand the show. I wish he'd dump the stock.

    3. Re:Don't worry by operagost · · Score: 1

      Last I heard, your broadband already sucked and was controlled by two companies. And I hate to burst your socialist bubble, but it doesn't matter whether the government is left or right wing. With state capitalism, you have two or three companies in fake competition with poor service. With socialism, you have one company, no competition, and poor service.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    4. Re:Don't worry by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Right, so fascism it is then.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    5. Re:Don't worry by c0lo · · Score: 1

      Here in Australia we just elected in a right wing government, they are intent on fucking up our Broadband network as well to protect entrenched interests such as Murdock and Foxtel, so you're not alone.

      The current right wing govt still promissed FttN.
      Well, for metro area, the good news: at least Optus and TPG (and, I hope, iiNet soon), are ready to offer you the FttP part with a 24 months lock-in contract.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    6. Re:Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You heard wrong, unsurprisingly. There are many ISP competitors, and the new NBN would have been an excellent system,
      but big money doesn't like it. We also have great universal health care. It's hilarious how stupid Americans are about the blatantly rigged markets in their country being better,

    7. Re:Don't worry by asamad · · Score: 1

      so true to all 3 above

    8. Re:Don't worry by citizenr · · Score: 1

      Reproducing this on a hardware level with a network of peers replacing a company servers - consumer clients model ramps this up to a whole new level.

      The requirements of vested interests play well into the lack of scientific/technological awareness of Abbott and many of colleagues (excluding Turnbull obviously).

      What network of peers? NBN has INTERNAL data caps build in. Exchanging data with your neighbor next door counts same as downloading goat pr0n from Romania.

      NBN was never a threat to client/server hosting model, it was planned from the start as a joke. Lets build super fast broadband network, and then lets limit it to 50GB per month while pretending its about limited interconnects with the rest of the world..

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    9. Re:Don't worry by blackpaw · · Score: 1

      The FTTN they are promising won't fly - the copper network is just not up to VDSL except in limited areas. If they do proceed with it, it will be a disaster.

    10. Re:Don't worry by operagost · · Score: 1

      Who said anything about health care? You also have rampant censorship of media and video games, and no firearm rights. Irrelevant.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    11. Re:Don't worry by operagost · · Score: 1

      It doesn't make a difference as long as you're still living in your mom's basement.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  2. NSA aint helping either by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Lets not forget about the people that wont use a US based cloud service because of the NSA snooping.

    1. Re:NSA aint helping either by MacDork · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Seconded. The NSA has ruined it for the US cloud companies. Permanently. Does Google, Facebook, and friends think that anyone will trust them again? They lied. They lied about lying. Then they lied about that. Now they're pushing to release FISC documents? As if that would somehow sprinkle magical dust on the problem and make it go away?

      There are no privacy protection laws limiting the types of data companies collect in the US. These companies collect data because it makes them lots of money. In the process, they are the facilitators for the NSA.

      Want to restore trust Google? Stop syncing WiFi passwords on android by default. Stop shipping a browser with Do Not Track defaulted to off. Stop collecting data you don't need or have any business collecting. Of course, that won't happen. That's why this crop of invasive companies have been dealt a deathblow by Snowden. I give them 15 years before they've been made irrelevant by newer peer to peer systems. Maybe less.

    2. Re:NSA aint helping either by gweihir · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Hey, I have a nice conspiracy theory: The NSA is behind the low bandwidths! As they need to collect any and all packets, they had the bright idea to make that easier by making sure the network snooped on is slow, so they do not need a surveillance network much faster. After all, the data has to come to their servers somehow....

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    3. Re:NSA aint helping either by MrDoh! · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not just the spying to put people off, but I seriously wonder if the delay in rolling out really fast connections is related to the NSA's ability to scoop up that data. "can you hold off providing 1gb asymetric links to all your subscribers until we upgrade our data center please? Cheers, the offshore bonus to the CEO is in the usual account".

      --
      Waiting for an amusing sig.
    4. Re:NSA aint helping either by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      Hmm. Upload bandwidth is curiously difficult to get a lot of when using a residential connection. You may be on to something there...

    5. Re:NSA aint helping either by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A would show the risks in rapid property changes and rushed new technology upgrades.
      If NSA cleared contractors are not called out in time, local engineers and new middle management might start to open their doors and ask real questions.
      Upgrades are messy: new ides, new staff, new smaller property, more passive optical.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    6. Re:NSA aint helping either by game+kid · · Score: 2

      ...and if the transfer speeds are reasonable, then cut off for "data limit" reasons.

      No, I don't think it's just a conspiracy.

      --
      You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
    7. Re:NSA aint helping either by tepples · · Score: 3, Informative

      Stop shipping a browser with Do Not Track defaulted to off.

      Some web servers have had a policy of disregarding DNT headers from browsers known to default it to on. Case in point: pre-release versions of IE 10. If Google were to "Stop shipping a browser with Do Not Track defaulted to off" as you suggest, what would that do other than get Chrome added to the list of browsers from which to disregard DNT?

    8. Re:NSA aint helping either by DworkinLV · · Score: 2

      Why does most everybody think that just the cloud providers will be harmed. The firmware for switches/routers/hardware firewalls, etc is an ideal place to backdoor the networks. If I was going to spy on foreign governments that is where I would look to setup backdoors, in the infrastructure that DEFINES their networks.

      --
      Browsing without an adblocker is like fucking without a condom - Mal-2
    9. Re:NSA aint helping either by mechtech256 · · Score: 1

      Probably not.

      If the data traffic was higher, it would make acquiring funding (the real objective of this operation) even easier.

      The NSA already gets 50 billion dollars a year, more than triple NASA's budget.

    10. Re:NSA aint helping either by Stickerboy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Stop shipping a browser with Do Not Track defaulted to off.

      Some web servers have had a policy of disregarding DNT headers from browsers known to default it to on. Case in point: pre-release versions of IE 10. If Google were to "Stop shipping a browser with Do Not Track defaulted to off" as you suggest, what would that do other than get Chrome added to the list of browsers from which to disregard DNT?

      Is this a damnation of Internet Explorer, or a damnation of a weak-ass privacy flag labeled "Do Not Track" that corporations can apparently ignore at will?

      Newsflash: this is not a indication that Google is doing things the right way. This means Do Not Track needs to be fixed.

      --
      Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
    11. Re:NSA aint helping either by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      ...Does Google, Facebook, and friends think that anyone will trust them again? They lied. They lied about lying. Then they lied about that...

      Bankers and politicians have 'suffered' many scandals over the centuries, and nothing has changed one bit. Business is better than ever. Of course people will 'trust' them. And even if they don't, they have been conditioned to feel hopeless about it and will stick with the devil they know. They are more content with not having to make uncomfortable choices. They fear losing the pittance they have if anybody rocks the boat. Eyes front, head down.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    12. Re:NSA aint helping either by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately, these companies know that most people a) don't much care what the NSA does, b) have a very short memory and short attention span, and c) just can't wait to consume the next shiny thing that comes along.

      For the rest of us, no matter what the politicians say or do, we will never trust them or the NSA again, and will never believe anything the US internet companies have to say about it again. Credibility is gone baby, gone.

    13. Re:NSA aint helping either by c0lo · · Score: 1

      Is this a damnation of Internet Explorer, or a damnation of a weak-ass privacy flag labeled "Do Not Track" that corporations can apparently ignore at will?

      Newsflash: this is not a indication that Google is doing things the right way. This means Do Not Track needs to be fixed.

      Good idea! While fixing it, please do also address the adherence to the RFC3514: examining my router/firewall logs shows a complete disregard of it.
      (Oh... btw... maybe you can do something about that pesky first law of thermodynamics? Or, by chance, the second? I mean... if you manage to push a new law criminalizing the use of any of them, we may solve the world's energy related problems)

      Joke aside, my point is: if someone wants to track you, how are you going to stop that one?
      Making the tracking illegal is not going to solve it, as it doesn't solve the non-adherence to RFC3514; the attempt will be as useless as to repeal a law of physics by a parliament issued law or decree

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    14. Re:NSA aint helping either by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      Where the cloud is based makes no difference.

      No it makes a big difference if your private or corporate data is protected by a logical legal environment...see below..

      All undersea cables are tapped. All sat signals are intercepted

      While I think it is a crying shame what governments are doing en masse ... I also believe the Internet is not now nor has never been trustworthy. We all really knew that perhaps with varying degrees of surprise at revelations in recent months. If not government certainly bad actors lurking at any hop outside yer admin control have always been a problem.

      Beyond all the noise it is quite reasonable to establish secure communications over insecure channels. Much much harder proposition to secure physical computation from ethically challenged employees and governments. This is why a sane legal regime matters even while the Internet will (hopefully) never become a "trusted" network.

      The ONLY guaranteed security for sensitive is an air gap which is never breached

      That's like saying the only guaranteed secure encryption is OTP... Perhaps true but pointless and useless in the real world.

    15. Re:NSA aint helping either by Lorien_the_first_one · · Score: 1

      I think you are pretty close, but I think that the real problem for the NSA is the possibility of real competition to provide internet access. Imagine how tough the job will be if the NSA had to get cooperation from hundreds of ISPs like they have in Japan. The duopoly here is very convenient for the NSA but a nightmare for the rest of us.

      Had we declared the owners of the pipes to be common carriers and imposed open access rules upon them, we'd have something like what Japan has: fast internet access with hundreds of ISPs vying for my money. Instead, we have cable and telcos who operate on one principle: make sure that the CEO can have a few vacation homes sprawled across the world, send his kids to private schools until they are married and allow him and his extended family to live in gated communities. The members of the board of directors get similar benefits, but to a lesser extent.

      Oh, one more thing. The corporations participating in the duopoly need to siphon enough money from the economy to capture the agencies that regulate them, except for the NSA, which in theory, can't be bought. Snowden proved that, but not in the way the NSA had in mind.

      In sum, the duopoly will slow the net down, but it will also provide a few powerful leverage points for the government while concentrating revenue into a few companies willing to cooperate. Yeah, that sums it up.

      --
      The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
    16. Re:NSA aint helping either by jonwil · · Score: 1

      I think the biggest thing to fear if you are a foreign country, foreign company, foreign government or foreign entity and are concerned about the NSA is not that info on Google or Facebook or Twitter or other US-based internet companies has been compromised by the NSA but that all that networking and cellular equipment from the likes of Cisco, HP, Juniper, Motorola Solutions and others have been compromised.

    17. Re:NSA aint helping either by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      I know you are kidding, but RFC3514 is a request for comments, not a standard, so there is nothing to be adhered to...

    18. Re:NSA aint helping either by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Well, but you need to actually have the cabling for the snooping in place. That takes time. Remember that for reliable network surveillance of a net-link you need something like 2.5x its bandwidth, unless you do extensive preprocessing in on-site sensors and servers (in the "special rooms"). But that preprocessing needs to be done real-time, needs high expertise, always loses accuracy and may expose what they are doing, so they may move away from it and really need that "shadow network" bandwidth.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    19. Re:NSA aint helping either by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Bureaucracies like the NSA are great at doing a half-assed job, years delayed for 10x (or more) of the cost and making everybody else suffer for their incompetence. Hell, they had a junior sysadmin steal all their dirty secrets, it does not get more incompetent than that.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    20. Re:NSA aint helping either by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      I think the biggest thing to fear if you are a foreign country, foreign company, foreign government or foreign entity and are concerned about the NSA is not that info on Google or Facebook or Twitter or other US-based internet companies has been compromised by the NSA but that all that networking and cellular equipment from the likes of Cisco, HP, Juniper, Motorola Solutions and others have been compromised.

      And people worried about Huawei...

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    21. Re:NSA aint helping either by StripedCow · · Score: 1

      Why do you think processor speeds got stuck at about 3.5 GHz?
      Yes, because there's some NSA real estate on your cpu.

      --
      If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    22. Re:NSA aint helping either by citizenr · · Score: 1

      So what you are saying is She was asking for it! With that mini skirt and cute smile she was practically screaming RAPE ME.
      Is that it?

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    23. Re:NSA aint helping either by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Fortunately there are plenty of other companies happy to remind people about the NSA and explain why it affects them, and why therefore they should use alternate services outside the US like the one said company is offering.

      Even Microsoft is trying to sell privacy with it's "scroogled" campaign. It's a thing now, and hopefully will only continue to gain traction.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    24. Re:NSA aint helping either by bob_jordan · · Score: 1

      Or ....

      It's actually a big conspiracy perpetrated by the British government to stop British people emigrating. I get over 120meg down the fibre the cable company kindly laid right to my house. What possible reason would I have for emigrating to Australia or the US if I have to swap my fibre for two cans and a bit of string? :-)

      Bob.

    25. Re:NSA aint helping either by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      That's like saying the only guaranteed secure encryption is OTP... Perhaps true but pointless and useless in the real world.

      There's no reason whatsoever that our bank cards couldn't have one-time pads stored in the smart card portion. Someone could be in charge of distributing OTPs to both ends of a connection securely, perhaps via mail. I think if you could reduce it to small payments, a lot of people would use a service like this to communicate securely with specific endpoints, but using it to secure bank transactions seems like the obvious first step given the ubiquity of smart cards. I suppose SIM cards could do the same, but who would trust the telcos anyway?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    26. Re:NSA aint helping either by idontgno · · Score: 3, Funny

      An RFC is a standard in all but name. Not as clumsy or random as a formal specification; an elegant standard for a more civilized age. Back when "rough consensus and running code" was enough. Before the dark times... before Eternal September.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    27. Re: NSA aint helping either by jbo5112 · · Score: 1

      They have orders from NSA and Prism was a state secret. Failure to comply is an act of treason, and after enough resistance from a company they would probably seize all the computer equipment (Internet without Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Microsoft, etc.). Of course, they would run the proper propaganda campaign first, so we don't execute the politicians for treason ourselves.

      Companies have been fighting in unhelpful courts instead. What they should also do is run disturbing political ads against all incumbents in Congress who are supporting the NSA (e.g. "Big Brother is watching you" billboards, with the politician's face), and start the campaigning before the politicians do.

    28. Re:NSA aint helping either by usuallylost · · Score: 1

      That could be part of it. At least in the major markets the duopoly providers in the US are reaching the point where they don't have to invest a lot in the current network. So if they just agree to stay at this level they can sit back and milk their current infrastructure for profits for quite sometime before they have to upgrade again. So my suspicion is that the NSA is simply a beneficiary of the lack of a real free market. On the other hand I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that the NSA doesn't have a hand in some of the FCC decisions that help keep us from having an open market.

    29. Re:NSA aint helping either by OutOnARock · · Score: 1

      Does this mean the NSA's predecessor was behind the QWERTY keyboard too?

    30. Re:NSA aint helping either by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      Then make your browser bring this to the attention of the user. Say to them that the site is using a server that ignores the Do No Track setting. If enough users see this and stop going to the site then the site owner will be forced with the choice to keep tracking the remaining users or to change their server.

    31. Re:NSA aint helping either by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Nice one!

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    32. Re:NSA aint helping either by gweihir · · Score: 1

      The other problem is that I actually know a few people that were involved in network surveillance and transferring the snooped data away is a really serious issue. So, while I posted to be funny, I would not rule it out completely either.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    33. Re:NSA aint helping either by gweihir · · Score: 1

      You mean limiting typing speeds? I would not put it past them!

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  3. Government sucks by fustakrakich · · Score: 1, Troll

    Because the citizens have no balls. Too many Cheetos, I guess... That's what that shit does to you, it shrinks your balls. Makes you submissive and lazy... This is the government you deserve. Live with it, or fix it. Your choice.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:Government sucks by Mitchell314 · · Score: 1

      [/sheeple argument]

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    2. Re:Government sucks by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Don't insult the sheep. People are worse.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:Government sucks by Mitchell314 · · Score: 2

      Yeah, I don't need to say any more: http://xkcd.com/610/

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    4. Re:Government sucks by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      That doesn't change the fact that you are responsible for your own salvation. Contrary to everyone's hopes and expectations, it won't be spoon fed by mysticism and politics and mass media.

      [goto OP]

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  4. Local government wants its cut by mc6809e · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Many municipalities have a franchise arrangement that gives the local cable company a monopoly so long as the cable company pays a franchise fee.

    Where I live, that fee is 5% of GROSS revenue -- quite a lot of money. Many businesses would be happy with profits that are 5% of the gross.

    Of course the cable company doesn't mind paying because they can inflate rates without worrying about competition. And the local government doesn't mind because higher rates mean more money for them!

    It's really a hidden tax on an artificially higher bill. And the fact that it's hidden means the typical voter doesn't know they might have the power to change it -- and that's precisely the goal.

    1. Re:Local government wants its cut by jonwil · · Score: 1

      The problem (as has been seen in a number of situations) is even if the local council can be convinced to give approval for new competitors, the entrenched players just go over their head and get the state governments to regulate things and overrule the local authorities.

    2. Re:Local government wants its cut by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      Many municipalities have a franchise arrangement that gives the local cable company a monopoly so long as the cable company pays a franchise fee.

      While you're right about the franchise fees, it's important to note that virtually no areas of the country (outside of private housing developments) have monopoly franchises, as they're generally banned. In 99% of the US, if you want to start your own cable company, can show that you have the financial wherewithal to see it through (don't want people to just start tearing up the streets willy-nilly, and are willing to pay the standard franchise fee, you're on your way. Your way to bankruptcy, that is. Cable operators aren't legal monopolies, they're _natural_ monopolies - it's a great business if you can get 50% penetration in an area. If you get 20% penetration, it's a terrible business, and you never make back your cost of capital. Even an operator like Verizon, who already has a huge presence, strong brand, customer service in place, yadda yadda, will probably never earn a return on FiOS.

  5. Infrastructure pretty much requires the gov't by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    you can't make enough money off it in the short term to make it a worth while investment. As in investor there's always something with better gains in your lifetime. That's why the gov't made the comm network, the railroads, the (car) roads, and just about everything going back to the fsckin' Aquaducts.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Infrastructure pretty much requires the gov't by AHuxley · · Score: 1, Informative

      The private sector built the railroads, funded bridges, worked with (oil, gas, iron, steel), positioned pipelines, electrical grid, telephone... optical is on the way - just wait like other generations had to.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:Infrastructure pretty much requires the gov't by mc6809e · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's why the gov't made the comm network, the railroads, the (car) roads, and just about everything going back to the fsckin' Aquaducts.

      The government paid for a lot of of those things, but that's not the same thing as making a lot of those things. And in that respect the government is simply acting as the agent for the collective purchase of something that (hopefully) provides a collective benefit.

      That's sort of the point of democratic-republican (little 'd' and little 'r') government -- to do the collective will of the people. Sometimes that means buying stuff (and that's not socialism -- that's just normal government).

    3. Re:Infrastructure pretty much requires the gov't by NouberNou · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So much wrong in this its not even funny. Who provided the money? Government. Who provided the land. Government. Who provided the basic technologies. Government. Get your head out of Ayn Rand's rancid cunt and realize public/private partnerships are the best, because neither side can do everything on their own.

    4. Re:Infrastructure pretty much requires the gov't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Very clever word usage.

      The private sector built the railroads,

      ...because of massive government incentives like land grants.

      funded bridges,

      ...so they could get their free land from the government that was worth more.

      worked with (oil, gas, iron, steel),

      Yes, that is what industry does. The government is not allowed to directly do such things.

      positioned pipelines,

      ...for their own profit and convenience. There was never a 'public good or need' for them.

      electrical grid, telephone...

      Again, with great government incentives in place like local monopolies, right of way, and special taxes to pay for it all.

      optical is on the way

      So are vacation homes on mars. Your words are meaningless.

      - just wait like other generations had to.

      Ahh, and now we get to the real problem. There is little incentive to improve. With most locales having monopolies or duopolies, there is no competition and thus no incentive to change until something breaks and really has to be replaced. Meanwhile other countries that care about infrastructure are funding it with public money, for public good, with public control. Our information tech dominance is slipping away while we wait for the invisible hand to stop touching itself.

    5. Re:Infrastructure pretty much requires the gov't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Provided the basic technologies? What the fuck are you talking about?

    6. Re:Infrastructure pretty much requires the gov't by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Corporations ARE the government. Sure they are owned by individual investors, but their charter is granted by the government, and they are endowed with super-human liability powers that would make this arrangement otherwise impossible. The government can change the rules that they operate under on a whim. You want an example of government interference in the "free market"? The corporation (especially the limited liability part) is perhaps the largest, though "intellectual property" is pretty high up there.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    7. Re:Infrastructure pretty much requires the gov't by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

      Actually the point of a democratic republic is wealthy land owners didn't want the poor voting themselves land and money. Seriously, look it up. It's pretty well documented.

      --
      Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    8. Re:Infrastructure pretty much requires the gov't by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Re Our information tech dominance is slipping away while we wait for the invisible hand to stop touching itself.
      Yes something is very wrong with the funding mix and expected returns.
      Why the total hesitation to change over from expensive copper in cities?
      Optical would be the way to go. Known bandwidth, more passive to backhaul, less expensive cooling and power in suburbia.
      The consumer gets a backup battery at home and can run their voice phone, internet, fax, alarms, cctv, enjoy television. The option to move data "up" if they pay more can be sold on too.
      Are skilled workers who can splice so rare or expensive to educate and clear for that work?
      Are the ducts in such bad repair or badly mapped? Sooner or later the over provisioned copper will run out.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    9. Re:Infrastructure pretty much requires the gov't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Who provided the land. Government.

      I'm pretty sure the land was provided by millennia of geological and biological processes.

    10. Re:Infrastructure pretty much requires the gov't by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      "The railroads" is a pretty bad example (at least in the US).

      The US government grandfathered land for sale, or otherwise facilitated the purchase/theft of the land, but the bulk of the railroads were NOT built by the government.

      --
      -Styopa
    11. Re:Infrastructure pretty much requires the gov't by uncomformistsheep · · Score: 1

      As in investor there's always something with better gains in your lifetime.

      A system of secure property rights gives the correct incentives for long term investment. A tree may take 200 years for the cut, but the original farmer can just sell a bond to the market. (I am not an econ major, but I studied it a little bit, and can dig up the proof if you want.) The problem of public goods is one usually of transaction costs. You cannot negotiate with every landowner to build a road; it is not only costly, but some will try to withhold and rip you off. Also, a lot of times there are natural monopoly problems.

      That's why economists favor government being involved in investing on infrastructure. Not because they are long term investments. Here in Portugal, at least, the investment for highways and etc actually is private.

    12. Re:Infrastructure pretty much requires the gov't by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Corporations ARE the government. Sure they are owned by individual investors, but their charter is granted by the government, and they are endowed with super-human liability powers that would make this arrangement otherwise impossible. The government can change the rules that they operate under on a whim.

      And the rules are bought and paid for by the corporations. Which means that the corporations own the government.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:Infrastructure pretty much requires the gov't by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Corporations can get the government to change the rules that they operate under on a whim.

      I guess I didn't make my opinion clear. Of course the corporations can influence the government - they are as much a part of it as the State Department. I'd wager that CEOs and other company officials are called to testify in front of congress as often as any other branch of government. Heck, company officials are even elected, albeit by representation based on wealth instead of population.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    14. Re:Infrastructure pretty much requires the gov't by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      See my above response to the AC. I don't really consider them distinct - so naturally I would agree that the corporations help to construct policy. I would argue that we need stronger separation between the two.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    15. Re:Infrastructure pretty much requires the gov't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Who provided the money? Government. Who provided the land. Government. Who provided the basic technologies. Government."

      You are a shining example of our fucked up school system.

      None of what you claim is true. Read up on some history.

  6. wow, mixed feelings by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Slow broadband adoption? Baaaad
    Slow cloud adoption (ie, not putting all your data at the mercy of someone else)? Good.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  7. What can the US do? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Optical to the node with existing copper?
    Optical to the home replacing existing copper?
    Optical to the tower with well installed line of sight wireless?
    The existing copper loops can be long, damaged, old, in need of expensive ongoing long term work to keep them at a quoted min data speed.
    Any node box will need power, cooling, backup power and has to positioned in suburbia or the copper length reduces the new speeds.
    Trying to run optical from a home to a node hits a cpu/heat wall.
    Optical to the home replacing existing copper is good as its passive and can be upgraded - no loud active cooling on the street.
    Line of sight wireless? How many users per tower and at what speed? How do you give limited spectrum to users wanting huge uploads and downloads without caps, prices and other methods to contain their need for bandwidth?
    Optical would be the smart way to go. The optical/copper node buys the telcos a few more years? As for the huge data push up to the cloud - the end user copies that 1080p, 2k or 4k video clip onto their home machine and wants to share/backup....

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:What can the US do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Have to post this anon. I work for AT&T and we do optical to the node with existing copper. Unfortunately the existing copper from the node and then the copper wiring in homes throws a wrench in 75% of the time. Optical to the home then gigabit Ethernet would be a better solution. I am often asked why as an employee I use Cox cable. Because they give me superior bandwidth, and a more reliable product... and they come out on Sundays. US carriers are not into upgrading infrastructure but intent on monetizing everything they can. We charge the exact same thing for DSL we did in 1997.

    2. Re:What can the US do? by operagost · · Score: 1

      To be fair, DSL in 1997 was 256K-640K. Now it's 1-2 M.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    3. Re:What can the US do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yep. We have AT&T landline POTS. We have only the choice of ComCast for ISP. We're 500 feet too far for AT&T DSL (yep, our neighbors down the hill 480' closer to the AT&T box have DSL) and have been for 9 years. AT&T won't do whatever's needed to get us and ~ 300 other households as possible customers. Everybody's monetizing, nobody's investing in infrastructure.

    4. Re:What can the US do? by Takahashi · · Score: 1

      In some places its even better. Mine is 40Mbit down/20Mbit up (attainable), which is near the top of what VDSL can do(AFAIK)

    5. Re:What can the US do? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Yep. We have AT&T landline POTS. We have only the choice of ComCast for ISP. We're 500 feet too far for AT&T DSL (yep, our neighbors down the hill 480' closer to the AT&T box have DSL) and have been for 9 years. AT&T won't do whatever's needed to get us and ~ 300 other households as possible customers. Everybody's monetizing, nobody's investing in infrastructure.

      You think you have it bad? The ISPs in my town are a lousy WISP, Mediacom, and ATT. Both ATT and Mediacom are within a stone's throw of my home but neither one comes here. I pay $50/mo for 1.5Mbps, and it's not even reliable.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  8. Size matters by jklovanc · · Score: 1, Insightful

    All over the world ,in smaller high population density countries, high-end fiber is being deployed while powerful monopolies

    FTFY. Comparing the US to countries like Japan is not valid.

    1. Re:Size matters by PPH · · Score: 1

      OK. Let the telecoms serve the cities and other population centers. And the PUDs and other public entities serve rural communities.

      The howl from the corporate world is deafening.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Size matters by jrumney · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Japan population density: 330p/sqmi.

      New Jersey: 1196p/sqmi. Rhode Island: 1018p/sqmi. Massachusetts: 839p/sqmi. Connecticut: 738p/sqmi. Maryland: 595p/sqmi. Delaware: 461p/sqmi. New York: 411p/sqmi. Florida: 351p/sqmi. US coastal counties population density: 440 p/sqmi.

      But apparently those areas can't have high speed broadband because the population density of Wyoming and Alaska makes the cost prohibitive.

    3. Re:Size matters by jrumney · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sorry, I made a mistake. Japan is 330p/sqkm, which places it at the same level as Massachusetts, not Florida. But still, there are definitely areas of the US that have the population density to support globally competitive infrastructure, and politicians and apologists need to stop using the vast empty space in the Midwest to build a population density excuse.

    4. Re:Size matters by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The main fear is optical backhaul to the basement and the option of any ISP, telco or other provider just been selected by customers as needed.
      Cheap best effort ISP or a telco with more real dedicated optical.
      No more service monopoly, duopoly or city/telco cartel keeping consumers for life.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    5. Re:Size matters by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Yes, and I live in NJ. I pay $45 per month for cable internet. The throughput? 130 Mbps / 30 mbps with no caps.

      It seems pretty decent to me.

    6. Re:Size matters by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Yes, but you are comparing the population density of the entire country with certain cities. What do you think the internet speed is in Nemuro, Japan?

      For comparison, here is an example of a suburb in South Korea. They probably have a population density of 1000p/acre in that area. In that kind of area, the 'last mile' problem is all within single buildings. We don't have many places like that in America. We prefer to have more privacy.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re:Size matters by jrumney · · Score: 1

      According to NTT, you can get 200Mbps residential fibre in Nemuro, Japan. They already made enough profit from providing fibre to the premises in Tokyo, Osaka etc over the last 10 years that they can afford to build out the infrastructure even to remote areas now. Meanwhile, you're still sitting there making excuses for why these sorts of speeds are not even available to residential customers in Manhattan.

    8. Re:Size matters by inhuman_4 · · Score: 2

      That is a bunch of crap. It has nothing to do with population density, and everything to do with how messed up the market is. I know because the situation here in Canada is the same as in the US. A handful of companies control the whole market.

      Here is an example for you. Finland has crazy good internet connections, with only a population of 5.4 million. Where I live in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) has a population of 6 million. My city has more people than some whole European countries!

      The New York Metropolitan Area has 23 million. Thats half the population of Spain!

      This idea that population density is the problem is bullshit.

    9. Re:Size matters by cpicon92 · · Score: 1

      It needs to be pointed out that the population density of Tokyo is not 330p/sqkm, and Tokyo is where the fast internet is. I lived in rural Japan a few months ago, and the internet there was DSL just like in the rural US.

    10. Re:Size matters by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Rural USA gets DSL? I thought you had to be within a few miles of the exchange.

    11. Re:Size matters by chihowa · · Score: 1

      He was comparing US states to small countries, which is quite appropriate.

      But anyway, why can't you get affordable gigabit FTTP in NYC or Boston or any major city in the US? The idea that a fast municipal ISP would need to cover the salt flats to cover LA is silly. Or if we'd rather stick with our abusive duopolies, they can choose to roll out fiber in select cities and not everywhere.

      FTTP not being available in Bumfuck, WY may have to do with the prohibitive cost of deploying the technology, but that argument doesn't work for the actual high density population centers.

      I live in one of the larger cities in the US and my options for internet are 1.5 Mbps DSL or 50 Mbps cable. WTF? The lack of competition between the entrenched players and the lack of a government mandate (the only way to make the established mono/duopolies do anything but collect rent) is why we've stagnated like we have.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    12. Re:Size matters by cpicon92 · · Score: 1

      I meant the US equivalent of rural Japan. Rural Japan is still denser than the US in a lot of places.

    13. Re:Size matters by TheSync · · Score: 1

      Actually it is local loop length that matters for speed.

      Statistics show that the US has far longer local loops than most other countries (see figure 2 in this document).

      I believe this is not only due to the rural population, but it was due to a reduction in the number of central offices to have a more efficient telephony network in the analog to digital telephony conversion from 1970's-1990's before DSL technology was a reality.

    14. Re:Size matters by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Japan doesn't care about local loop length for its high speed connections, because they have abandoned trying to layer high speed internet on top of early 20th century infrastructure, and started laying fibre to residential premises to replace it at least 10 years ago. Rather than sitting there complaining about long local loops making DSL performance poor, you'd think the US would be up there replacing the copper local loop with something more suited to meeting 21st century needs too.

  9. Re:This is wrong by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    So other countries went from dialup modems and plain old telephone service (POTS) to optical? Adsl1 and 2+ never made it out of their telcos labs?

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  10. Is the basic premise even TRUE? by Dahamma · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I have 50/10 Mbps for $70 and yes, it actually has been as advertised every time I have tested it for the last couple years. We routinely use two 9Mbps video streams with no issues and plenty of bandwidth left for browsing/downloading/whatever.

    People in the US have routinely paid $100+ for cable/satellite TV for years. $8/month gets you Netflix or Hulu (or x2 for both) and there are a tons of VOD services now (VUDU, Amazon, CinemaNow, etc) to rent (or buy) movies/TV instead of using Showtime/HBO/Starz/etc.

    The big problem is not necessarily US infrastructure (at least by expenditure) vs. other countries, it's the fact that the US has a lot less population density. In urban areas, there are almost always options and the performance/price is pretty decent. In rural areas it hasn't caught up because frankly it will cost a lot of $$ per customer. Yes, South Korea has great broadband, but that's because it's mostly VDSL, etc running to multi-unit high rises...

    1. Re:Is the basic premise even TRUE? by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Why? Why is it not enough? Please give any *useful* examples of why it's not enough for the price at present time? It will get faster for the same price in the future, or I could pay more now (I think it's $115?) for 100Mbps service. I could afford that service, no problem, but I have zero use for it so why waste money?

    2. Re:Is the basic premise even TRUE? by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      So you had tech support issues? Welcome to technology, that's annoying as hell but not really relevant unless you think things always run 100% smoothly everywhere else in the world...

      As for options - that's mostly stupid Baltimore politicians making exclusive agreements with Comcast, not companies not *interested* in competition...

      http://www.webpronews.com/baltimore-working-to-bring-more-internet-options-to-its-businesses-and-residents-2013-08

    3. Re:Is the basic premise even TRUE? by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Yeah, rural broadband sucks, but that was my point... (I'm sure you can take US rural broadband infrastructure expenses and multiply by 5x for rural Canada...)

      On the bright side, you probably actually get a YARD, and a VIEW of the stars, and FRESH AIR, etc. There are times I wouldn't mind trading my suburban CA Bay Area home for those things... it's all on a spectrum, don't discount the advantages ;)

    4. Re:Is the basic premise even TRUE? by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Nothing in your post about population densities or average bandwidth and prices of NE US vs. Tokyo was remotely accurate. Look it up, not going to bother reposting for an AC. Bye-bye now.

    5. Re:Is the basic premise even TRUE? by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and I filled up my last gas tank for half of what you did. BFD.

      Prices for various services vary in various countries. Fact of life. And it's getting faster and cheaper in the US, but a bit slower than wherever you are (which as an AC with absolutely no citation we have to take with the tiniest grain of salt anyway). But again as none of these are significant prices your tidbit is totally irrelevant to the OP.

    6. Re:Is the basic premise even TRUE? by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Also, in my country public transportation is phenomenally good so I don't have to fill up my tank with anything. We don't even own a car.

      That was a major part of my point. Works when you live in an urban setting and don't want to go anywhere outside of your metropolitan area you have different requirements and expectations, just like with broadband.

      Besides, I *like* driving, and I like the places I can go by driving. There are a lot of things I want to do nearby where public transportation makes no sense. Try transporting 2 kayaks to the ocean, or 2 mountain bikes to the mountain - with public transportation. Try using public transportation to go on a day trip to your favorite remote beach 100km away. Unless by "phenomenally good" public transportation you mean you can close your eyes and be teleported into the middle of a 2000 year old redwood forest, maybe your "high standards" are too low.

      But my point is not to criticize your leisure time... it's more to criticize the arrogance in thinking your specific lifestyle is somehow better than other countries (regardless of the costs involved).

      And while I am in fact in favor of nationalized health care (and to a lesser extent for at least some subsidized education), to say it's "free" is completely naive. You just pay for those things upfront in higher taxes, and in the US people pay them on demand. Not saying that is better, but it is a fact.

    7. Re:Is the basic premise even TRUE? by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Same with Canada, and it's a moot point as it's irrelevant if not one really lives in the boonies, only if a lot of people live in the boonies. For example, in Sweden, 1.4M people are considered "rural". In the US, it's 55M. In fact the *entire* Scandanavian population is still well under what would just be considered rural America.

  11. Why Use a Cloud? by Phoenix666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yesterday I spent three hours trying to help a friend upload a mysql file to his Amazon cloud service. There was no such thing as a simple ftp. Trying to PuTTY into his setup was impossible too. Calling tech support, which he paid for, resulted in them sending us links to articles we had already found via google and which were not helpful. Everything was so cloaked in marketing speak that it was impossible to tease out how to do anything normal and straightforward. They couldn't even manage to say words like "VPN" or "ssh." Simply ridiculous. Who has the time to learn a whole new nomenclature for the same old tasks we've all been doing for decades, just to satisfy a bunch of marketing droids whose only interest is in being the least helpful they can possibly be, and sucking as much cash out of you as they possibly can. Jeeze, just set up your own server and VPN and you have your own "cloud." And it costs you nothing, and nobody gets in your way with a bunch of nonsense.

    --
    Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
    1. Re:Why Use a Cloud? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Everything was so cloaked in marketing speak that it was impossible to tease out how to do anything normal and straightforward. They couldn't even manage to say words like "VPN" or "ssh." Simply ridiculous. Who has the time to learn a whole new nomenclature for the same old tasks we've all been doing for decades, just to satisfy a bunch of marketing droids whose only interest is in being the least helpful they can possibly be, and sucking as much cash out of you as they possibly can.

      Spot on.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    2. Re:Why Use a Cloud? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Any telco or skilled isp could offer optical from diverse regions, real backup power, be able to meet huge cpu and storage needs at a price.
      The "cloud" undercuts aspects of the above with less diverse optical or backup power might be in a basement in a floodplain.
      The huge cpu and storage options are the main selling point.
      What to do about optical connections or backup power is left to the consumer to code around or select deep in setup options.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  12. The US Way by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Wring every last cent out of the existing technology (i.e. copper wire), pay executives big bonuses and screw customers with rotten customer service. Small wonder we're becoming a backwater.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  13. Short-term leases by tepples · · Score: 2

    Jeeze, just set up your own server

    I thought the difference between leasing a server and using "The Cloud" was originally supposed to refer to rapid provisioning and rapid failover. For example, you don't have to commit to a year's lease of a dedicated or virtual server; you can bring up virtual servers to meet demand and then decommission them once they're no longer needed.

    1. Re:Short-term leases by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

      linode.com does month to month, prorates per day. disclaimer - very long time customer, very happy.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    2. Re:Short-term leases by dkf · · Score: 1

      linode.com does month to month, prorates per day. disclaimer - very long time customer, very happy.

      And the point of a Cloud is that you can buy as little as an hour, possibly even less with some services. That really changes how you use things, and the sort of business you do with it, as there's a lot of behaviour that varies on that scale much more than it does at the level of months. It's also cheaper if you only need a few hours of processing occasionally; that applies to a lot of things.

      Of course, you can combine things. You might put your persistent control systems at fixed IP addresses in linode, but spin up workers in a Cloud as required. Mind you, you can do the same thing inside Clouds using a cheap low-resource instance at a fixed address. Working out the best combination overall is non-trivial, especially in abstract.

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
  14. But you dont have caps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Its funny seeing US broadband as being expensive and slow, try Australia for plans, ranked 40th in the world at the moment. The US is 9th.

    http://www.news.com.au/technology/state-of-the-internet-australia-web-speeds-ranking-dwindles-to-40th-place-globally/story-e6frfro0-1226560992748

  15. An easy fix by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 2

    An easy fix is to change the "game theory" dynamic.

    Currently, we don't pay for usage, we pay for access. The providers get the best value by discouraging use: high monthly fees, data caps, throttling power users, poor facilities, installation fees, and poor customer care.

    If the government required providers to charge for usage only, then the providers couldn't increase profits except by increasing use. They would have an incentive to build fast pipes, connect everyone in their area, have customer service that gets people up and running quickly, allow servers, and encourage innovative new applications.

    This could be changed without affecting their annual profits - just tally up all the usage in the last year and divide into their current revenues. They would make the same profits next year as last year, but with an to provide better service.

    Just another example of how the federal government doesn't really benefit the people.

    1. Re:An easy fix by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Good thinking. But there also needs to be competition.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:An easy fix by adolf · · Score: 1

      Hello, friend. My name is 2013.

      I regret to inform you that 1994 called, and they want their metered Internet back.

      Best wishes.

  16. Duopoles and the NSA by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    Right, American people cannot afford the cloud because their residential internet is to weak, and non American people with good internet connectivity should reject it because of NSA spying.

    There is some irony here in how free market and government intervention can enter a synergy here.

  17. I think the first roadblock is the NSA by Bryan+Bytehead · · Score: 1

    Crappy infrastructure or not.

    --
    Bryan
  18. Re: This is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Sweden made the journey years ago. Most municipal infrastructure companies started to roll out fiber in parallel with existing cable ducts. The railroad company put fiber along all tracks nation wide. All of this fiber is dark fiber that isp can rent cheap.

    So I have 6 isp to select from at home. Competition is the key for cheap prices.

  19. All hail capitalism! by YoungManKlaus · · Score: 1

    nuf said

  20. But the NSA could help! by ggraham412 · · Score: 1

    The NSA could lease out some of their infrastructure to help move the cloud along. I hear they have some pretty fast networks and large storage capacity. If they leased that out to cloud services, then those companies wouldn't have to develop their own infrastructure. :-p

  21. Don't forget Canada (Third World) by fygment · · Score: 1

    One country in North America will lag the US in adoption, that would be Canada. Canada, the northern backwater for affordable digital connectivity rights, will lag for all the same reasons suggested for the US, except the US population will eventually galvanize and change things ... something that will not happen in passive ol' Canada.

    --
    "Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
  22. big deal by tatman · · Score: 1

    "The cloud" is just a fancy new word for server farms, which is already been in use on a massive scale for as long as I can remember. Sure cloud implementations provide different services such as paying per CPU cycle, but even that is nothing new. The internet will thrash on. I think this article was just disguised attempt at bashing communication conglomerates (I hate them too).

    --
    I've always said English was my second language. Had Romeo and Juliet been written in C, I might have understood it.
  23. The Cloud Is My Master by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 1

    I've been chosen

    to warn you that we've been down this road before. In 1982 IBM was incredibly convinced that their new Personal Computer was destined to be used for simple word processing and as a dumb terminal to dial in and access their Really Smart Computers to do the Real Work. You wouldn't even need to purchase an expensive high speed printer, you'd just key in your time card data, run some reports and drive down to the nearest Service Bureau to pick up a little package containing the week's dot matrix bursty-form payroll checks.

    All twelve of them.

    The concept of your business cranking to a silent standstill because someone with a backhoe cut a cable somewhere or someone cannot be swallowed by Amazon or Zaxxon in time is not new.

    DISCLAIMER: I admit that I have not read all of The Reg Whitepapers that describe how while we were asleep we have passed beyond the virtualization era into the even sexier post-meta-virtualization era of metametametadata , where one IT worker can do the work of thousands, millions --- after of course Complete Migration is Achieved and the simple 'GO' button is installed by a licensed technician at your business. There's just no time to read all that stuff.

    I'm here stuck in traffic, on my way to pick up the payroll checks.

    --
    <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
  24. Or by jimmydigital · · Score: 1

    Or maybe better broadband is slow to roll out because the NSA can't monitor it fast enough? It's part of the 'No Kilobits Left Behind' program...

    --
    Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. -HLM
  25. DNT does not need to be fixed by Sloppy · · Score: 1

    Imagine a world where every HTTP request has DNT:1, and you're a server. What does that header tell you? Do you have a branch in your code, where the value of the header influences your code's behavior? Or is the header just wasted bandwidth, since it doesn't actually tell you anything?

    DNT cannot be "fixed." It is already as powerful as it can possibly be. Go back from the server's PoV to the user's: can you even imagine how you would implement a situation where an HTTP header somehow magically forces other peoples' computers to forget things? DNT not a "technical measure" in DMCA-speak; it's an expression of a user's preference.

    DNT's expression is advisory and it always will be, at best. The most you can ever possibly change it, would be to push it from advisory and informative, to ignored -- from possibly useless to definitely useless.

    That's why it should default to unset, neither on nor off. It is only through an act of the user's will, that the header can possibly contain information, in the hopes that the server chooses to use it (and hoping to persuade someone else's computer to act a certain way, is the upper bound in what you can hope to achieve; that is the best case scenario). If you make it default to something other than unset, then you have removed information and lowered the probability that the server chooses to act the way you want it to. Whatever value DNT has, will be decreased.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  26. When over 65% of sites use Apache by tepples · · Score: 1

    For one thing, the server whose maintainer announced plans to ignore DNT was Apache HTTP Server, one of the most widely used freely licensed web servers. This survey claims that over 65% of web sites run Apache. For another, there may be additional proprietary, company-specific web application code that ignores DNT, and a browser has no way of knowing about it. P3P is supposed to express a site's privacy policy in a machine-readable form, but Google and others have policies that are too complex to be represented in P3P.