Slashdot Mirror
New Zealand To Bring Ultrafast Internet To 85 Percent Of Population (stuff.co.nz)
Ultrafast broadband is coming to more than another 200,000 homes, but doubts are already being expressed that the expansion of the network isn't quite ambitious enough. From a report: Another 423,000 people will be able get ultrafast broadband (UFB) by the end of 2024 as a result of a long-awaited decision to expand the network. Prime Minister Bill English said UFB would be extended to more than 151 additional towns, on top of the 33 cities that are already getting the service. The expansion will mean UFB will be available to "up to 85 per cent" of the population, up from the 75 per cent coverage that is planned to be delivered by 2020.
With an small download cap!
... as 512kbps ?
The expansion will mean UFB will be available to "up to 85 per cent" of the population
So basically Auckland.
Summation 2
By the way? 50 Mbps? 100 Mbps? 1 Gbps? Was it that difficult to say that?
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
The speeds offered are 30 down/20 up or 100 down/50 up (in Mbps). So it is about like cable internet in the US.
Ray Seyfarth, ray.seyfarth@gmail.com, http://rayseyfarth.blogspot.com
>> New Zealand To Bring Ultrafast Internet To 85 Percent Population
But not to underground cities. Clearly, this policy discriminates against Balrogs and Orcs on a racial basis.
A) Because sheep can hear a zipper from a mile away...
Unfortunately for New Zealand, Ultrafast is relative. They're at the end of the cable. New Zealand connects to Australia which connects to Asia which connects to Europe and North America.
Since many websites are hosted on severs on "the other end of the cable" they have to bounce around many servers and potential bottlenecks before they get to the server they seek. Sites based in the US and Europe may still take a long time to load for the kiwis.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
The NZ government defines UFB as a typical connection of 100 mbs download. The New Zealand population, for all the image of isolated sheep farmers, is unually urban. 85% of the population live in towns/ cities, and the cities of Auckland and Wellington alone account for 45% of the population. Altogether, to take another 8 years to get some 4 million people in a well ordered society up to 100 mbs is alarmingly unambitious.
Yet again, up to the readers to do the job of the editors for them. How fast exactly is Ultra-Fast? Here is an extract from the New Zealand UFB page which also makes it clear that it is a replacement of existing ADSL with FTTH.
In particular UFB upload speeds are typically at between 10-50 times faster than ADSL’s average 1MB/s upload.
The most popular offerings (utilising GPON technology) are currently:
– 30Mb/s download, 10Mb/s upload
– 100Mb/s download, 50Mb/s upload
Businesses and other organisations are able to purchase P2P (Point-to-Point) UFB fibre connections of up to 1Gigabit/s (1000Mb/s).
Editors - get a clue.When you take news articles from all sorts of publications and present them to a largely homogenous readership, you can put in a little bit of additional effort to account for any assumptions the original sources may have made about their readers. Do not teach the slashdot crowd what JavaScript is. Do not assume everybody reading this story on Slashdot is from New Zealand and knows details of what UFB is.
More zombie sheep on the Internet.
The speeds offered are 30 down/20 up or 100 down/50 up (in Mbps). So it is about like cable internet in the US.
Except the % of US population with 100/50 availability is much closer to 8.5% than 85%.
It's a province of the Netherlands, though it's more commonly written as Zeeland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Have you seen how big the US is compared to even ... Europe? Seattle to Miami is about the same distance as London is from Tel Aviv.
AND we have large chunks of land that have "Ultra Low" populations (Wyoming, Dakotas, Montana, Nebraska ...) where feasibility outside a few population centers is nearly impossible.
But this is what happens when you have a bunch of elitists planning the lives of everyone else, but who never leave big cities.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
What is the speed and feed for ultrafast broadband?
What do you mean? European or African ultrafast broadband?
Have you seen how big the US is compared to even ... Europe? Seattle to Miami is about the same distance as London is from Tel Aviv.
AND we have large chunks of land that have "Ultra Low" populations (Wyoming, Dakotas, Montana, Nebraska ...) where feasibility outside a few population centers is nearly impossible.
Ho hum.
The population density of New Zealand is 17½ per sq.km. The population density of the US is 35 per sq.km (about double New Zealand's), and even higher if Alaska is removed from the calculation. So you fail on the first measure.
The large chunks of land with ultra low populations makes the population density even higher in those areas which have populations. Again, you fail.
About 5% (let's be generous, and say 10%) of the US population has access to more than 100Mbps down and 50Mbps up. New Zealand is due to deliver it to 85% of theirs within a couple of years.
I think a combined 1000gbit/sec dedicated connectivity to West coast us. So for 4.5million population makes huge sense to make best use of it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Cross_Cable
Amazing how much lit and unlit capacity is being strung around world. Once it was cheaper for us to do back haul between continents and back than worry about cross country xfer.
For apps with not big requirements for low Latency changes where you stick the edge nodes. Imagine one factor behind Netflix and amazon launching in 100+ countries in past 18 months.
That's the cheaper basic plans, for a little more you can get 1000/500 Mbps
I am running 100Mbps up and 100Mbps down with a static IP address and unlimited data for NZD$99 a month (~ US $72). I'm told I can now have a 1Gbps service which is tempting but I have yet to max out my current connection.
More roll out is good news, I know a couple of people who are a few meters short of the current service areas. Yes, like me, they are in Auckland but I know fibre is already available in smaller centers like Levin, where my family is. For farmers it would be great news as DSL services typically don't work on the long copper runs they have, whereas fibre should work fine. I suspect it will be a long time before someone comes up with a cost effective way run fibre out to them so I guess they will remain an unserved 15% for a long time.
BTW I had a real battle to get connected as I am multi-unit dwelling (4 joined town houses) and Chorus (the cable installer/wholesale provider) will only connect multi-unit dwelling if all properties agree to be connected and only two of us want the service. I wrote to my local MP, the Minister of Commerce and the Commerce Commission. To her credit the local MP contacted Chorus, who had be refusing to connect me for about a year, and they had a change of heart. The installers still tried to connect all four units but only got as far as my unit when they realised the last two units did not sign up for a connection. As a result I actually have 3 fibre connection on my property!
is that an excuse to offer crappy slow Internet in populated coastal areas?
Maybe, but we can't even get decent speeds to areas with a much higher population density.
Explain to me why 10 miles outside Colorado Springs all we can get is 10/1 DSL or most of Wisconsin outside the cities is in the same boat? FYI the area I live in outside Colorado Springs had a old style rural telephone company that was laying fiber and upgrading the infrastructure until CenturyLink bought them and stopped all infrastructure upgrades and went to charging us for $60 a month and 10/1 advertised that delivers about 2.5/.5 between 6:00PM and midnight. No other provider available.
The population density argument MAY be valid for portions of the US but not for anywhere east of the Mississippi River or the larger cities in the west.
Ahh...Aussies...
Yet to explain why Koalas have STDs
And they sing some song about tying a Kangaroo down mate
Mind you, it was (is?) a prison colony, so it probably started when some poor Aussie creature sniffed a bar of soap
I don't think they care about a baaaad connection
Everyone who can get fiber in NZ can get Gigabit speeds now.
Population density of NZ is nearly half that of the US (17 vs 32 heads/km2), with similar urbanisation (85 vs 80%). Sure there's more to cover in the US, but many more customers to pay for it, and the US has had a pretty big head start. Even Australia started building a similar plan some years back - and we're almost as big as the US but with a population density of only 3 heads/km2.
Australia knows all about ultra-low population areas, yet is still targeting 93% coverage, using wireless and satellite where needed. So it's absolutely possible for the US to do far better than it has. You're right about the elitists being the problem, but maybe wrong about who and why - it's not because they don't know what's involved, but simply because the telco executives are already making fat profits from their existing territories and are not interested in competing further.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
I can get around 800mbps to a US server, although this is not common but it's usually going to be contention at a router overseas that causes slowdowns, nothing inside the NZ ISPs control. And I don't know many people with caps anymore, I have used ~10TB a month and my ISP doesn't care. Lots of people still on 30/50mbps plans, but these are generally grandfathered plans. The base plan for many ISPs is 100/20 now which is about 50USD. My 1000/500 plan is 90USD. They even dug up my 60m driveway to install the fibre duct for free. Can't complain about Internet service in NZ at all now.
That 85% is not until 2020 assuming the construction is on schedule which is hardly ever the case.
Yeah but at least after we have finished with the sheep we export them to Australia.
If I had a DeLorean... I would probably only drive it from time to time.
Then it does live up to the adjective, ultrafast. I found slower speeds. Thanks
Ray Seyfarth, ray.seyfarth@gmail.com, http://rayseyfarth.blogspot.com
If you're going for a certain percent coverage, the states without much population don't count much. However, since they get disproportionate amounts of Federal support, they can get such disproportionate support for Internet connectivity if we elitists decide (and we're much more likely to, being used to propping up rural economies).
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
NZ has the worst Internet coverage of any country I have ever visited (and that includes many so-called developing countries such as Indonesia). It is possible to drive the main highway for almost 400 km from Wanaka to Franz Joseph without any cell phone coverage. Of course there is no fiber either and that area was not listed on the map referred in the article. So people traveling the road need to wait beyond 2024 for an improvement! That is simply unbelievable in any developed country.
Have you seen how big the US is compared to even ... Europe? Seattle to Miami is about the same distance as London is from Tel Aviv.
AND we have large chunks of land that have "Ultra Low" populations (Wyoming, Dakotas, Montana, Nebraska ...) where feasibility outside a few population centers is nearly impossible.
But this is what happens when you have a bunch of elitists planning the lives of everyone else, but who never leave big cities.
Australia is not much smaller than the US geographically, with 1/15th the population, and we're rolling out a similar service (expected 95% coverage).
Enough excuses, the US has a few great things, but for the most part it is like a third world country. And now you have a 3rd world tin pot dictator to match. Good luck with that.