Slashdot Mirror
Should The Government Fix Slow Internet Access? (fivethirtyeight.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a story from Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight site about "the worst internet in America":
FiveThirtyEight analyzed every county's broadband usage using data from researchers at the University of Iowa and Arizona State University and found that Saguache, Colorado was at the bottom. Only 5.6 percent of adults were estimated to have broadband... It has some of the worst internet in the country. That's in part because of the mountains and the isolation they bring... Its population of 6,300 is spread across 3,169 square miles 7,800 feet above sea level, but on land that is mostly flat, so you can almost see the full scope of two mountain ranges as you drive the county's highway...
But Saguache isn't alone in lacking broadband. According to the Federal Communications Commission, 39 percent of rural Americans -- 23 million people -- don't have access. In Pew surveys, those who live in rural areas were about twice as likely not to use the internet as urban or suburban Americans.
In Saguache County download speeds of 12 Mbps (with an upload speed of 2 Mbps) cost $90 a month, and the article points out that when it comes to providing broadband, "small companies and cooperatives are going it more or less alone, without much help yet from the federal government." But that raises an inevitable question. Should the federal government be subsidizing rural internet access?
But Saguache isn't alone in lacking broadband. According to the Federal Communications Commission, 39 percent of rural Americans -- 23 million people -- don't have access. In Pew surveys, those who live in rural areas were about twice as likely not to use the internet as urban or suburban Americans.
In Saguache County download speeds of 12 Mbps (with an upload speed of 2 Mbps) cost $90 a month, and the article points out that when it comes to providing broadband, "small companies and cooperatives are going it more or less alone, without much help yet from the federal government." But that raises an inevitable question. Should the federal government be subsidizing rural internet access?
In a country where you die from illness if you're not rich, Internet should not be your priority.
Is how quickly all u nerds suck my DAMN balls
I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
Before Clinton converted it in to a "laptops for schools" program, the Universal Service Fund was used to fund telephone lines in rural America where the cost was too high. It worked: telephones became ubiquitous. The Universal Service Fund should be restored to its original purpose with the simple tweak: fund the initial builds for broadband Internet access in rural America.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
They should fine the shit out of the telcos who took billions in subsidies to provide broadband to the nation and then reneged on their end of the deal.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
So, those people who decided to live way the heck out in the middle of nowhere to get away from civilization need internet access? Why?
It would probably be cheaper to find the ones who actually want high-speed internet and give them money to move.
It's hilarious to see these "the US has a lot of people who don't get 10 megabit internet, when compared to other countries," while noticing that the countries they compare us to generally don't have a lot of wide open spaces to cover. There's a whole lot of countries that don't have (for example) places like Death Valley or the mountains of Colorado.
On one hand, they want the government to force their favorite solutions to every problem they can imagine (real or otherwise) down everyone's throats whether the solution actually works or not, or fits individual preferences or not (human differences are to be confined to skin color and what you do with your genitalia; everything else must be plus-plus same). On the other hand, they want everyone (with the exception of people running small, organic farms) to lived in highly-planned (by them), densely-populated urban areas.
If somebody wants to live out in the sticks, that's their business. Living out in the sticks generally means lower land prices, but most other things are more expensive because you're further away. Let people figure out their own trade-offs.
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
Large telecoms have no interest in solving the problem. Old telephone rules and wire access prevent anyone else from doing it. All the government needs to do is knock down the antiquated rules and companies will come along and fill the gap. Cable companies started as small rural enterprises extending TV coverage to those to far from cities to receive it over the air. If you let new companies access wire right of ways, they will spring up again.
The US Government has a terrible Internet access infrastructure because the US Government hates the Internet, US Cable Industry hates the internet, and US Right wing Religious institutions hate the internet, and the Telecom industries don't want to roll out new infrustructure. US Movie industries hate the Internet too.
Yes the US Government needs to fix the Internet. We won't get that until the (current) Right Wing US Government is removed from power and a Left Wing US Government takes its place. That probably won't happen without a Civil war in the US.
In my humble opinion, the empowering potential of the internet is far more throttled by ominous server-prohibition ISPs than by slow ones. In a networking 'field of dreams' environment where everyone had merely a 56k modem, but no restriction on operating servers and tethering/multiple-devices we would see more benefits to society than a server-prohibition 100% broadband landscape. The really interesting and socially beneficial aspects of the internet don't require a ton of bandwidth, what they require is an Expectation Of Free Speech. Which in my mind implies the freedom to operate servers so that you aren't dependent on third parties to perform basic communication on the internet. Third parties with ridiculously overbearing and ultimately chilling ferengi print in their terms of service.
The realm of communication over 56kbps in my opinion should be left to the free market. We'll be seeing solar powered drone swarms of mesh networking along with orbital swarms soon enough. What people need for good social communication and participation is 56kbps (*with the freedom to operate their own servers*). Not gigabit. Similar to water- you want everyone to have access to a reasonable amount of water, thats more important than ensuring that 90% of people could sit around filling and draining a swimming pool all day.
Is there a correlation between lack of access to the internet and support for Trump?
DSL, this isn't surprising. A location near me:
http://imgur.com/WgSvnA5
that shows CenturyLink's claim to offer over an entire Mbps, but they can't actually get it to work at my house nearby. Several neighbors can't get DSL to work either. I'm still stuck on ISDN.
Betteridge's Law of Headlines clearly states that, when there's a question in a headline, the answer is no. The government should definitely not fix slow internet access. Thank you, Ian Betteridge, for making the answer to this question a very simple one.
Make it easy for companies and townships to build fiber networks. Remove the legal roadblocks. The technology is not difficult or particularly expensive, but the regulatory environment is an absolute nightmare. Develop a framework of procedures for cooperatives to follow that helps them avoid common pitfalls. And by all means, shield them from legal trouble initiated by the incumbents who don't upgrade their networks.
You have no idea what you're talking about. I've worked on web sites for churches for just over twenty years. My company about seven years ago branched out into managing social media presences for churches. They love the Internet. It's the left wingers like here in Seattle that hate it and won't allow us to have decent Internet access. They put into place their Director's Rules (do a Google search and you'll see over 3/4 of a million complaints about it) which basically makes it illegal to upgrade Internet access. They then gave a government-granted cable monopoly to most of the city to Comcast without requiring Comcast to provide service. It is the leftist that hate the Internet and won't allow us to have fast connections.
That probably won't happen without a Civil war in the US.
boy, am i glad this isn't "Ask Slashdot"
Sure, as part of an economic development programs on a project basis. If the government requires reporting, monitoring and measurement of the forests, agriculture and other industries, it should also support the building of the necessary communication services. Cloud service access in the wilds might have more of less expected economic advantages and become a requirement as the agriculture industry takes its steps to doubling of the productivity by the 2050. The associated technical challenges help advance the industry which can then benefit other domains, the government services and functions included.
Actually, the AC is correct, though for the wrong reasons. The headline is asking the question of whether the government should fix slow internet access. Betteridge's Law of Headlines is that the answer is 'no' to any headline that's a question. Therefore, the correct answer is no, that the government should not fix slow internet access. The AC's reasoning is wrong, but his conclusion is correct that the government shouldn't be fixing slow internet speeds. Betteridge's Law is the correct reason for this. Hope that helps.
Seattle is an odd duck. The liberals here hate education and the Supreme Court here recently ruled that the liberals were illegally underfunding education. They hate education and the schools in Seattle are horrible. Teacher pay here is also lower than in most states even out in the middle
of nowhere that has a lower cost of living.
They also fight against Internet access. Since I moved to my current place nine years ago, my street has spent over $50k fighting the city for permission for CenturyLink to improve our wiring. Most of neighbors don't want Internet access so I've paid many time my fair share to makeup for them. I still have dialup at home.
In a country where you die from illness if you're not rich, Internet should not be your priority.
Incorrect. Internet as a critical means of Free Speech is how you communicate the inefficiencies and corruptions of your society to the rest of it. Having a hearable voice to speak truth to power, and reveal injustice, is much more important than focusing on optimizing your healthcare within the existing inefficient/corrupt system.
Free Speech is the beginning of fixing the bigger problems. The Internet should be about Free Speech.
We must continue working to make the people utterly dependent upon government for all of their basic needs and wants: Internet service, health care, education, employment, food, shelter - everything. Recent history clearly shows that without such strong controls over the common folk, and especially the uneducated rural populations, the masses can be manipulated into electing lunatics such as Mr. Trump to high office, to the detriment of everyone, both in the US and around the world. In order to ensure the continued health, happiness, and well-being of all people, and especially of rural people, it is essential that they be protected from greedy corporate interests by a benevolent and caring government. There is no other way.
> liberals were illegally underfunding education.
Yes, that is true that happened, but it's not that underfunded. My wife makes a little less than $45k a year as a teacher in Seattle. The city council and much of the residents of the city have a great hatred of education so working here wears on her. She tries to do a good job, but when, for example, the Seattle police are so lazy they won't dispatch after a student waited at her car for her late one day in order to beat her, she has just given-up. She tried to find a teaching job outside of Seattle, but hasn't so far and time is running out. The city council is constantly hostile to schools and even more so to teachers.
I would like to see something analogous to Roosevelt's Rural Electrification initiative done for broadband access in the countryside.
I also wonder if this lack of access in the heartland contributed to the reason that the polls were so wrong.
Make poor people pay nothing, and tax the shit out of everyone that earns more than $8 an hour. See, poor people can't get fast internet because they can't afford fast internet, and fast internet is a human right, and poor people are being oppressed by rich people, by not being able to have one of their human rights. So the proletariats must rise up against the bourgeoisie and steal money from them (with increased taxes) so they can have fast internet. Every homeless person deserves a computer and fast internet!!
Not the FEDERAL government, certainly. States can enact policies supported by their individual populations however.
People aren't MANDATED to live in rural areas.
If they do, one of the 'sacrifices' they have to make is shitty internet service.
I'm reminded of the bullshit limousine liberals who moved out to western Montana for the low prices, splendid vistas, lack of congestion, and privacy...and then bitched the first winter because the power occasionally went out and nobody came to clear the snow from their 2 mile driveways.
Life's a series of tradeoffs. It's not the federal government's role to build safety nets for people.
-Styopa
If somebody wants to live out in the sticks, that's their business. Living out in the sticks generally means lower land prices, but most other things are more expensive because you're further away. Let people figure out their own trade-offs.
Indeed. This all seems like political subterfuge to me. Of course I see the positive value that many see in wanting more pervasive fast internet. But really this exposes the immature left as not understanding things like this. I.e. how capitalism/competition shapes things like drastically varying geographic population densities, land prices, water prices etc. Mark my words, we are about to see a future where autonomous solar charged electric vehicles delivering water are going to differentially increase the value of lands, e.g. in the desert, that have all of a sudden become much more livable. Interesting times ahead...
No government has any business interfering with private internet service providers. This means no subsidies, no restrictions on entry and no dictations of policy. Governments have only one job--protecting rights by punishing those who violate rights and by adjudicating disputes. Unless an internet service provider is defrauding its customers or initiating force against competitors, etc. no government has any right to dictate how they operate.
I live in a suburban metro-Atlanta city. I have a 1.5Mbs DOWN AT&T shit connection for $49 per month. My only choice is the Comca$t Crooks who do not offer internet only service in my area - I have to buy a "package". I do not want over priced shit cable TV service.
Why am I stuck with shit choices from shit companies?
Because the telecom industry bribed my Republican controlled Georgia state legislature to allow them to gouge us because CAPITALISM!
But that's America - for the corporation and by the corporation. We are not a free country.
And if you think it's a "progressive" thing - whatever the fuck that is - you have been in some bubble that is misinforming you.
So tell me then, why didn't the Left Wing Obama administration fix this? I mean, he was in office for 8 years.
Yes they should, it is a reasonable alternative to the two extremes that American politics seem to push as the only options; let the free market take care of it, or a government led "socialist" build. This by the way seems to be the problem with all American politics, no ability to compromise and find common ground. For example the gun argument (ban all guns, or, machine guns should be allowed in primary schools, give kids concealed carry!), or abortion (no abortion for rape and incest, or, abortion for all, until they are 15!).
The free market does not work in areas that are either unprofitable or have no competition. Identifying these areas, improving the infrastructure, then leasing or selling it back to ISPs (preferably lease, with open access for multiple local ISPs to compete on) improves service blackspots, and can function at the county or state level rather than a nationwide buildout.
Makes construction and deployment of utiities rather difficult!
No, it doesn't. My city-owned electric utility built a fiber network in a few years, at an affordable cost, and everyone in the service area can have high-speed internet at an affordable price. Wasn't hard at all.
Unfortunately, too many state Legislators are preventing city governments from doing that same thing across the land. They don't give the local community a choice,but impose it from afar.
See, your problem, LynnwoodRooster, is that you think we're all stupid, and have no ability to recognize the difference between serving the people and doing something mindless like evenly distributing service over every square inch of the country.
But we aren't. Not all of us will fall for your foolish attempts at deception. Instead, we are capable of realizing that there are improvements to be made, and they can readily be accomplished. Broadband internet access could readily be provided for everyone who wants it, and the cost would be easy to afford.
Of course, you've heard this before, because your moronic argument has been torn down, but you keep repeating it, since as a fraud and a liar, you can't behave with integrity.
Sad.
DO NOT let the government get any more control on the internet, than they have now. The "slow" internet in the USA, is BECAUSE OF THE SPREAD OUT NATURE of the United States.
CenturyLink is full of shit right now. They are backpedaling very VERY hard. I always go and do screen caps like that from time to time to show the shit service they offer in my neighborhood. One day, the site shows gigabit internet, so I went and signed up (thinking it was a fluke), and sure enough, they went and signed me up and I've been on it over a year!! (I'll save the rant for how unstable it has been for another time), but since then, I've gone back to check what offerings they have for my house and neighbors, and they've reverted back to only 3mbps DSL. So despite the fact that fiber is ran to my house and is right next to all of my neighbors, they won't allow anyone new to connect to it anymore. I've talked with the service guys, and our optical splitter is a 64-port trunk with 24 active connections, and a second trunk running to the same box which is not activated yet. Despite this level of connectivity in my neighborhood, they'd rather have everyone sign up for the slowest and shittiest DSL service imaginable.
from big companies like Amazon and support the federal economy.
The dinosaurs lacked high-speed access to the internet too, you insensitive clod . . . and now they're extinct! Coincidence? I think not.
The expectation of entitlement is absolutely out of control. Fucking go outside if your Internet is slow.
Should the government start laying cable? No. Should the government be putting pressure on the telcos that promised to do it. Definitely. Should the government constrain the ISPs that are preventing local governments from doing it. Abso-freakining-lutely, The funny thing is that Gov Cuomo just made a fool of himself begging bushinesses to adopt a subway and pay for maintenance so that their employees can have a better commute. Encourage people to move to rural areas and telecommute would release some of the pressure and make adoption unnecessary.
If "government fix" means municipal fiber then definitely yes.
The case in favour of the tax payer providing adequate internet coverage is the same as that of providing education; the next generation should be adequately provided for to ensure they can be part of their society. The fact that the US is making a pig's ear of providing adequate schooling is a reminder that this is an optimistic ideal, but it's worth engaging with.
The US Post Office should be allowed to compete for internet services: internet access, domain names, ip addresses, etc.
Aren't we already being charged taxes and fees on our communications services to help build out communications infrastructure in rural areas? Where is this money going?
If you need fast Internet access, don't move to Saguache.
I'm going to continue using the Host File Engine. Your software is well written, functional. The Host File Engine performs exactly as promised by mmell
his hosts program is actually pretty good by xenotransplant
his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources by alexgieg
(APK's) work, I've flat out said it's good by BronsCon
I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works by bmo
APK your posts on this & the hosts file posts, and more, have never been in error &/or bad advice by BlueStrat
Your premise that hostfiles are a good way to deal with advertising & malvertising is quite valid by JazzLad
I like your host file system by Karmashock
* It's recommended/hosted by Malwarebytes' hpHosts!
APK
P.S.=> China imitated me http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/26/boffins_supercharge_the_hosts_file_to_save_users_plagued_by_dns_outages/ - more coming in part #2... apk
What the govt could do is make a fair set of rules for competition.
The current quasi regulated system where the regulated can pick and choose the rules is nuts.
Define what internet service is and is not. (a not to be listened to private packet transport contract, not an information collection opportunity or worse)
Regulate the backbone separately. (Perhaps let the NSA or Google run it, Not.)
Separate access from internet service.
Make access an actual regulated monopoly after Ofcom.
Try to make internet service a competitive market running on the regulated access and backbone.
Absolutely let municipal play in the access market.
APK is totally right on this count. Adblock Plus on Firefox mobile is a dog on older, or lower end, phones. A hostfile based adblocker makes for a much better experience by chihowa
ABP is insufficient as a solid hosts file does everything that APK reminds us about by fast turtle
I support APK's stand on the hosts file by Trax3001BBS
APK, I know people give you a lot of shit regarding hosts, but please don't ever stop by nasredin
APK solution STILL relevant by Thud457
you're right about hosts files by drinkypoo
No complaints from me, I like APK... Reminds me to use a host file. Also, his stuff is free by aaaaaaargh!
APK's monolithic hosts file is looking pretty good by Culture20
APK... Awesome to see he's still spreading the good word by Molochi
APK
P.S.=> In addition to https://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10928781&cid=54910413/ earlier + 1,000's worldwide - there's no arguing w/ success... apk
And, as others have noted, this is exactly why the Federal and state governments should stay out of the issue. Let the people of East Bumfuck decide what their community needs and they can deploy and pay for it (or give a monopoly to someone who is willing to pay for it in exchange for revenue over coming decades).
They certainly had no issues with subsidizing phone access for everyone.
This is merely the updated version once telcos drop wireline services.
Government regulation allows those permits to have effect in the first place. Without government regulation, any non-subscriber can use trespassing and destruction of property laws to prevent an ISP from pulling cable or fiber across his land to reach subscribers on the other side.
You're really poor (and assets no longer are counted in "poor", only income). Your answer is Medicaid.
This depends on whether your state's legislature has decided to expand Medicaid. Republican states have tended on the whole to opt out as part of the general GOP philosophy to provide fewer public services.
Your income is below 400% of FPL (i.e., about $100K for a family of four). Your answer is to get insurance on the exchanges and get a government subsidy to help with premiums.
Republicans in Congress are attempting to repeal exactly this.
For the record the concept of Free speech simply means the government cannot act to silence you.
Not even by exclusively licensing radio frequency spectrum to carriers who would silence you?
Satellite and cellular often don't count because 10 GB per month is still a slow sustained connection, even if it does happen to be burstable to 10 Mbps or more. It's too slow, for example, to support three PCs in a household automatically downloading a feature update for Windows 10 in the month of its release.
This is a really controversial topic here in Australia. A previous government created the NBN (national broadband network) with the idea of having fibre connections to non-regional houses/businesses, 4G connections for rural and fast Satellite connections for remote. Current government saw it as a waste of money and anti-competitive, so they completely botched the idea by using old tech for the connections. They rolled out fibre to the house in regional towns first, ignoring the connection problems of inner-city areas. So here I am, in a city of 2 million people, one mile from the centre of it and the fastest connection I can get is a 4G one.
Let the flame war about this topic commence.
When I moved here, I paid for a new CO and upgraded lines, so that I could get DSL. The phone company installed it without charging me for labor and a neighbor paid for an extra mile of new lines. This wired up all but one house, and they don't want Internet. It can be done.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I'm going to continue using the Host File Engine. Your software is well written, functional. The Host File Engine performs exactly as promised by mmell
his hosts program is actually pretty good by xenotransplant
his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources by alexgieg
(APK's) work, I've flat out said it's good by BronsCon
I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works by bmo
APK your posts on this & the hosts file posts, and more, have never been in error &/or bad advice by BlueStrat
Your premise that hostfiles are a good way to deal with advertising & malvertising is quite valid by JazzLad
I like your host file system by Karmashock
* It's recommended/hosted by Malwarebytes' hpHosts!
APK
P.S.=> China imitated me http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/26/boffins_supercharge_the_hosts_file_to_save_users_plagued_by_dns_outages/ - more coming in part #2... apk
APK is totally right on this count. Adblock Plus on Firefox mobile is a dog on older, or lower end, phones. A hostfile based adblocker makes for a much better experience by chihowa
ABP is insufficient as a solid hosts file does everything that APK reminds us about by fast turtle
I support APK's stand on the hosts file by Trax3001BBS
APK, I know people give you a lot of shit regarding hosts, but please don't ever stop by nasredin
APK solution STILL relevant by Thud457
you're right about hosts files by drinkypoo
No complaints from me, I like APK... Reminds me to use a host file. Also, his stuff is free by aaaaaaargh!
APK's monolithic hosts file is looking pretty good by Culture20
APK... Awesome to see he's still spreading the good word by Molochi
APK
P.S.=> In addition to https://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10928781&cid=54910413/ earlier + 1,000's worldwide - there's no arguing w/ success... apk
http://newnetworks.com/ShortSC...
http://newnetworks.com/bookofb...
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
period, thank you.
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/
Ads/script & malware rob speed/security/privacy
Hosts add speed (via hardcodes/adblocks), security (vs. bad sites/malware/poisoned dns), reliability (vs. dns down), & anonymity (vs. dns requestlogs/trackers).
Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus + less security bugs/complexity & faster vs. addons/routers/remote dns!
Avoids DNSChangers in routers/IP settings & dns redirects (99.999% of ISP DNS != patched vs. it) + lightens DNS load & resolves faster from local system RAM!
* Via what u NATIVELY have in the IP stack in FASTER kernelmode!
APK
P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/e01211ca36aa02e923f20adee0a3c4f5d5187dc65bdf1c997b3da3c2b0745425/analysis/1433430542/
I'm going to continue using the Host File Engine. Your software is well written, functional. The Host File Engine performs exactly as promised by mmell
his hosts program is actually pretty good by xenotransplant
his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources by alexgieg
(APK's) work, I've flat out said it's good by BronsCon
I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works by bmo
APK your posts on this & the hosts file posts, and more, have never been in error &/or bad advice by BlueStrat
Your premise that hostfiles are a good way to deal with advertising & malvertising is quite valid by JazzLad
I like your host file system by Karmashock
* It's recommended/hosted by Malwarebytes' hpHosts!
APK
P.S.=> China imitated me http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/26/boffins_supercharge_the_hosts_file_to_save_users_plagued_by_dns_outages/ - more coming in part #2... apk
South Korea has 51 million people in 38,000 square miles. In the U.S., that density is only achieved with gerrymandering the east coast.
By way of comparison, California has 39 million people in 163,000 square miles.
New York State has 19.7 million people in 54,000 square miles.
That only explains why the low density areas of the US don't compare well with Korea. Why don't the higher density areas of the US have the same level of service?
South Korea has a total density of 500/km^2 [1]. The 50th densest county in the US is Camden which is at 2,322 / km^2.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korea
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_statistics_of_the_United_States#Most_densely_populated
APK is totally right on this count. Adblock Plus on Firefox mobile is a dog on older, or lower end, phones. A hostfile based adblocker makes for a much better experience by chihowa
ABP is insufficient as a solid hosts file does everything that APK reminds us about by fast turtle
I support APK's stand on the hosts file by Trax3001BBS
APK, I know people give you a lot of shit regarding hosts, but please don't ever stop by nasredin
APK solution STILL relevant by Thud457
you're right about hosts files by drinkypoo
No complaints from me, I like APK... Reminds me to use a host file. Also, his stuff is free by aaaaaaargh!
APK's monolithic hosts file is looking pretty good by Culture20
APK... Awesome to see he's still spreading the good word by Molochi
APK
P.S.=> In addition to https://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10928781&cid=54910413/ earlier + 1,000's worldwide - there's no arguing w/ success... apk
And the density of where you live? Was it around 2 people per square mile> Did it already have regular utlities and power and COs located where everyone was within service distance of such infrastructure?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
FiveThirtyEight - where internet polls = scientific studies. Nope. The question itself is retarded. These problems are because of government.
so fuck em , This is just giving them what they asked for,
Every week I get call from peopple that think you can run a household with 15 devices off of 50 meg internet. They all say wow I didn't know that everyone is streaming 4k videos on everything it would slow down. We beat out our only competitor in the area and the max I've seen is 15 meg down 512k up. It will take regulation and subsidies that only pass money to small operators to bring the average speed up in this country. It won't happen by giving it to Comcast or any of the other large ISP.
At one time, there was a proposal that postal service would ensure every citizen in the USA would receive permanent free-for-life email address at @usps.us or whatever domain would make sense.
Was a good idea.....free very basic level email (no frills)...the modern equivalent of the original postal service goal of ensuring a minimum ability for people to communicate within the country.
Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo should have been focusing on enhanced premium email services just like FedEx and UPS do for overnight, business level, and important packages.
I'm fine with that translating to internet service and/or healthcare too.
Let USPS provide a simple 1Mbps service per household sufficient for 2-5 people to browse the web, read email, and download files....perhaps 2-3 Mbps for houses with several students or the elderly/very poor. It wouldn't be fast, and probably would have qos rules that moderately throttled video and high traffic apps...but I'm fine with ensuring every house, no matter what, has access to a very minimum level of access.
On the other hand, I think government should ensure businesses can compete by not allowing monopolies to strangle new startups and new inventions, but otherwise...I'd like the government to have as little to do with the internet as possible. Certainly not censorship or defining hate speech or deciding winners and losers for premium services.
Similarly for health care.....let the government provide a very basic level of care...but with some usage pricing like we do for postal mail. Just getting annual checkups, the occasional labs and generic meds...cost should be close to zero. Need some not that expensive meds on a regular basis to stay alive....government shouldn't absorb the entire cost, but it should give a good discount so that 60% of population wouldn't be spending very much at all.
Now the remaining 40% of the population and the very sick or elderly...or those who want first class care....there should be lots of competition for their business, the government should ensure that no one is screwing everyone else over to raise prices or restrict supply/put others out of business and that the care meets a minimum level of professionalism/safety....but otherwise....the government should be out of it. It shouldn't be giving tax breaks for employer sponsored plans. Government employees shouldn't be treated any better than any other citizen, unless they are truly critical to the ongoing operation of the government. Everyone in the USA should be able to shop for the same plans regardless of which state they are in...perhaps states could add additional riders specific to their states which might increase costs, but competition needs to be vigourous and at a national level and the government shouldn't be that involved.
Competition and fair rules and keeping the size of gov small is the only solution for healthcare that will keep costs down over the long term while ensuring politicians don't become the masters who lives or dies based on which minimum benefits are law or who contributed what to whose re-election campaign.
Ayn Rand explains this thoroughly. Why should people have money stolen from them to give freebies to others? This isn't the government's mandate.
No, but the government should not stop the people trying to fix it. And that's what they do.
I sure wish someone would fix my slow internet access. I live in Kansas City and have Google fiber. It used to be smoking fast, but now it stutters along most of the time. I've been going back and forth with tech support for over a month and they do nothing. Last time I had a problem about a year ago the line drop anchor had missed a stud and pulled some siding off my house and left the line drop laying in the yard. It took them over three months to send someone out to fix it, only to pull back out the next day. I ended up re-doing it myself, found the stud, and it's still up.
You want something done right.... Looks like I'm going to have to fix this one myself too. I read up online [netswat.com] and found that the router in their network box sucks big time, but you can replace it with reasonably-priced hardware and get a rock-solid connection. I already had a suitable managed switch to do the requisite vlan tagging but my old router wasn't up to gigabit throughput so I ordered an edgerouter that's coming tomorrow. I hope to have my gigabit speed back real soon, because this constant stuttering and stalling is nearly useless. It will probably take me several minutes to get through the preview and post this comment.
And the density of where you live? Was it around 2 people per square mile> Did it already have regular utlities and power and COs located where everyone was within service distance of such infrastructure?
Since you're making claims that the population density you assert is not inherently relevant(no matter how much you dogmatically try to repeat that same false argument, it will always be a strawman), since you're admitting I could even already have had utilities(what a wonder, we've had them for over a century now!), clearly you know it can be done. You know it isn't particularly difficult, and you even know your reliance on misleading statistics was nothing more than a pathetic attempt at deceit.
Due to that awareness, then your argument is fraudulent, as you well know by now.
Sad. Very sad that you have to lie so much.
But you shouldn't think we're stupid. You may get away with your scams for a while, but eventually we realize you are a con artist and run you out of town on a rail. See, we know that the population density of the US is irrelevant, it's the population distribution that matters, and it turns out that...the two numbers have no real congruence. The population is actually quite concentrated in a relatively few areas.
In fact, over half of the US's population lives in only 146 counties, and even the population inside them is not evenly distributed. Kern County is a particular example. About 8,000 square miles in area. Population? Around 900,000. If we went by a blind application of density like you prefer to assert, that'd be around 100sq/mi. But more than HALF the population lives within less than 250 square miles. In fact, the CDP of Oildale in Kern County has a population density of over 5,000sq/mi.
A little investigation sure tells a different story, doesn't it? Now try to do the same for Saguache, County, Colorado. Here's a hint: A lot of the county is actually designated wilderness preserve. Find out how much, if you dare.
Or do you think we need to provide internet service to the trees?
Well, ... counting .... looking ... Haven't Yet!
Hahahahahahahaha
Seriously, we already tried federal funding of broadband expansion. All it did was fill the pockets of telecoms; the problem still exists. Why would you expect another attempt to do particularly better? Because Trump's people will do it right?
If you're going to do anything, don't even consider the supply side at all. Set up a program on the demand side where sufficiently-rural addresses can apply for subsidies toward Internet access. That'll make fundraising for the OneWeb and SpaceX constellations easier while letting the individuals get on with HughesNet and Exede right now.
If you don't want well water, live near the water infrastructure. If you don't like septic systems, live near the sewer infrastructure. If you want to be out in nature, away from noise and neighbors and somehow enjoy driving 30 minutes to buy anything ever and living dangerously far away from police and fire services then do that. But guess what, the government isn't going to spend $50 million bringing fiber, sewer, and water to your neighborhood of 4 people. You do not pay $50 mil in taxes. If you want internet, move to where it is.
Encourage the government to break up monopolies but that's where I want the interference ending.
This post is DEFINITELY NOT DESERVING of a "-1" score by someone out there. More like a "+10, ACCURATE"
The post accurately states the REAL PROBLEM that is not being talked about: companies that overload network peering points with their traffic and then refuse to pay their share of the costs to upgrade the peering points that they overload. Looking at you... NETFLIX!
Everyone needs to take 2 steps back, then take a few deep breaths, and then carefully examine properly documented history to see how Netflix has "astroturfed" this argument so far beyond the scope of reality that it's astounding.
All of you people that "pound the pulpit" crying out for "net neutrality" are TOOLS... "pawns" is the word used by us older folk.
The focus should be on fixing the corrupt political system, and giving citizens proper health care and employment rights. As an occasional visitor to America, I'm utterly disgusted that such a terrible place to live can even be considered along with real 'firSt world' nations, where citizens don't even enjoy such basic rights, and where the political system is completely subverted by corporate interest. The terrible state of broadband in the US is only a symptom of the corrupt system. Fix the problem. Don't treat the symptom.
Stop spamming. It's ironic your ad-blocking software can't block your spam adverts, but your competitors' can. You're doing their work for them!
The internet is vital to e-Commerce that accounts for a significant chunk of our economic activity. It should be a public utility in the economic interest of every citizen of this entire country.
We'll make great pets
When I moved here, I paid for a new CO and upgraded lines, so that I could get DSL.
You paid for a new central office? Most of us don't want to pay multiple millions of dollars for a building full of telco switches and batteries so that we can have internet access. Perhaps you are misusing terminology?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
So you want to trust the same group of people who spend billions of dollars and can't keep your physical roads fixed to fix speed on the Internet? You've got too much faith in these clowns.
The government might as well do it because private industry isn't going to as long as they can milk the existing infrastructure.
So far most of the money the government has given them to expand infrastructure has been gobbled up by contract loopholes rather than laying cables.
About the same as Uverse charges for that speed in California suburbs. And don't call it "broadband" - it isn't. "High speed" perhaps, compared to dialup, but not "broadband" by FCC standards. Adequate for streaming a show while somebody else does email & light web surfing. Don't run a Youtube channel unless you're into overnight uploads. And the rate you pay for is only available when everybody else is away at work or asleep.
If you mean should the gov't subsidize companies to provide you with faster internet service......then in that case no, not only no, but go fuck a running Weed Wacker no.
I ain't even kidding, you and the others like you in here make my fucking skin crawl.
"I'm a bit of a dickhead" conveys the same information in fewer words.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Hey, you're starting to think! Now - how far apart are those big areas of population? Now compare that to Sweden (since it seems to be a favorite to compare against). Also consider CO locations relative to that density. Then sit back and realize - you're an idiot.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
No, it's a CO - I'm pretty sure. It's a fairly small(ish) gray box. I believe the requirement is that one must be within 13 miles of it, or something? It wasn't nearly that expensive. The whole bill was just over 30k. I'd just sold and both had the money and really wanted broadband, so I paid for it. I am going out tomorrow. I can get you a picture, if you want? I'm pretty sure it's a CO. It's not one of the brick building things - it's a gray box on a concrete pad. It's not that large, maybe a bit larger than a house-sized AC unit? Maybe? I haven't had any reason to pay attention to it. It's not like I'd know how to fix it and I'm pretty sure they don't want me playing with it.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
My dad told me once that government can fuck up a train wreck and over the years his adage has come to true on many many occasions. In this regard, the question is a false premise. The real question should be, how can the government get out of the way to speed up internet speeds? At least on the federal level.
It looks like this, pretty much (not identical, but about right):
Link.
You may be right and I may have the terminology incorrect. I have to be within so many feet of that thing. Well, the big thing. There's another smaller box nearby but I didn't pay for that. It was there when I moved in.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
What America needs is a national Telco to provide telephony, TV and data cables and control the electromagnetic spectrum. The Internet has been damaged by commercialisation.
Even if we accept your premise that all libertarians are dickheads, you'd have to be a moron to claim all dickheads are libertarians.
One counter example is disproof. I submit slashdot user Maritz as a non libertarian dickhead.
I've run rings around you logically...
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I believe the acronym you're looking for is DSLAM. Someone who works in the industry will be along soon to correct us both.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
That does sound familiar. It's right up the road, I guess I can go bust it open. I'm pretty sure I'd be the least likely suspect. I'm also sure there's no cops.
Whatever it is, I had to buy one. It was cheaper than what an ISDN was quoted as. Point to point radio wasn't an option - though it is now. Satellite wasn't a better option. So, I did that. The neighbor who paid for an extra mile of new line paid less than $1000, as I recall. This was ten years ago, so I imagine it's even cheaper?
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
$1000 for a one mile run is very cheap. Decades ago, I considered some property in the Sierra. At the time power line install costs were 10k$/pole. Killed the deal.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
"39 percent of rural Americans..."
Its wayyyy more than that. Its closer to 39 percent of the people in the contiguous U.S. do not have access to 4MB down internet service.
The poles already existed and it was in addition to what was already being done. The company was Fairpoint. The area, outside Rangeley, Maine. The year, 2008 - so more like 9 years ago. It was when my house was being built. That was '08. I retired in '07,
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
No! The government has done to much to put me OUT of being a ISP as it is. The best way to promote it would be tax credits. Give people the ability to spend upto X dollars on internet access. They file a simple form with the ISP and the ISP turns it in with their taxes. Set the credit as X$ of service with minimum MB/s. People will vote with their dollars and companies will respond to provide those service levels.
I keep hearing The Government is us so I'm not sure who you expect to fix anything when you say The Government. For one thing, even if you consider "The Government" (or "The State") as being separate from normal human beings, it is still run by and consists of human beings to function. Judges, police officers, legislators, executive administrative assistants to the vice chair of the majority sub-committee on hiring more executive assistants... all human.
When you say "fix" stuff... can you describe a precise process on how this is supposed to be done? I've always gotten hand-wavy answers like "voting" and "democracy". None of which actually physically implement anything you've ever asked for. Not roads. Not health care. Not internet access. It was human beings that did all those things as instructed by other human beings who were given "authority" to use force, if necessary, to enact these projects. In today's world it's almost exclusively bid to private contractors. The same people you could just go straight up to and ask to do it. For some reason putting another layer in the middle is better for everyone even though middle-men are evil in insurance and other "life-essential" areas.
How about this... you want stuff? You propose a business plan. Get local investment from the community to pay for a contractor to put in fiber. Negotiate the working rate with neighbors and future service users. Work with internet service providers to provide inter-connect access and use your community as leverage to get suitable rates and access speeds. Set up and maintain a locally-funded community POP with co-locateable racks and other services.
I mean, this is what all the human beings working for The Government will do (inefficiently). I don't understand why you can't cut out the middle man. Oh wait... I forgot... It's ILLEGAL to do any of that.
Well... good luck.
Hey, you're starting to think! Now - how far apart are those big areas of population?
Smaller than the distances across the Pacific and Atlantic ocean by far. We've already connected them, often with paved roads that cost far more per mile.
Now compare that to Sweden (since it seems to be a favorite to compare against).
It's a bit further, a few hundred miles across the North Sea.
Also consider CO locations relative to that density.
You're still stuck on density, instead of distribution, aren't you?
Don't even need CO's, any more than we need massive offices filled with telephone operators.
Remember that? It's gone the way of the dodo.
Then sit back and realize - you're an idiot.
For enjoying the benefits of high-speed internet, and wishing others could enjoy the same?
Want me to cry too?
Don't even need CO's, any more than we need massive offices filled with telephone operators.
And you just lost all credibility right there.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Don't even need CO's, any more than we need massive offices filled with telephone operators.
And you just lost all credibility right there.
You really hate that your useless objections aren't persuasive, don't you?
You've been sputtering them for a while now, complaining again isn't especially informative.
Just means I know that your outdated conception of telecommunications infrastructure is wrong.
I know, I know, contact with the telephone operator is so important to you.
But you should give up on that, just like you should give up on your useless reliance on population density to drive your arguments.