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.'"
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.
Lets not forget about the people that wont use a US based cloud service because of the NSA snooping.
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.
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/
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."
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.
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...
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.
Yeah, I don't need to say any more: http://xkcd.com/610/
I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.