|
TheFluff posted:Sweden has even lower population density than the US and internet is cheap here, even in rural areas. In cities you can get fiber in a lot of places for really cheap, but outside the big cities it's mostly DSL everywhere. It's cheap because the infrastructure is already in place (copper cables for the plain old telephone network) and the old phone monopoly (that is no longer a monopoly) is required by law to provide access to it at the same rate for any ISP. Hence there's decent competition on the DSL market even in a country with a population of about 9 million. Shockingly it was a lot easier to handle a country with 9.5 million people and a full 85% of the population in urban areas. By the way we have plenty of competition in the DSL market in America - it's just DSL sucks and is slow. So it doesn't really matter that if you care to look there will be a good half dozen providers besides the actual physical equipment owner, the speeds, reliability, and prices available tend to be very close together. And if you consider DSL to constitute cheap and fast enough access, nearly 100% of urban america and nearly 90% of rural america (which totals to 95% of the population) has access to such speeds . Arglebargle III posted:You seem really hostile about this. Because it's factually wrong, and I've had to lay out repeatedly in multiple threads, since people at large do not understand a raft of things ranging from net neutrality to what exactly Netflix's been doing to even what speeds are available in the country. I am sick and tired of the internet nerd "American exceptionalism" arguments about internet access that simply isn't true. People would do well check out http://www.fcc.gov/measuring-broadband-america/2013/February and http://broadbandmap.gov/ And also to keep in mind this when viewing the map: 
Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Jun 2, 2014 |
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 21:58 |
|
|
My question would be, do most Americans need access to ultra fast broadband? In nations where the average speed is dramatically higher, how much of that bandwidth is actually utilized? To me the "concern that the US is falling behind" is a bit of a farce. If providers are meeting the demands of most people there's no issue.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:And also to keep in mind this when viewing the map: You're right, extending broadband to those areas would be costly and stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
Unseen posted:My question would be, do most Americans need access to ultra fast broadband? In nations where the average speed is dramatically higher, how much of that bandwidth is actually utilized? Notions that Americans are falling behind generally tend to rest on comparing the absolute best lines available in other countries to standard access in America. There is also a separate issue that most of America received broadband access at all much earlier than many parts of Europe particularly - such is the reason that a country like Romania has broadband access in most of the country by fiber but only built over the past 10 years, while America built out what was at the time top end services but 20 years ago. It'd be like if we decided the American internet stat would be Google Fiber's 1 gigabit service in 5 cities and we'd compare it to something like the services available in suburban UK. Anyway people should check this European Union/SamKnows report out: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=4996 Some pages specifically compare results in the EU vs the US, notably it seems that European ISPs are way more willing to lie about their services:  
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
Fiber is dirt cheap in Russia, 30 Mbits is about 350-400 rubles roughly 10-12 bucks. Even considering the different in cost of living, it is much cheaper. Obviously it depends on where you live to a certain extent, but what are people paying in Chicago, San Francisco or New York versus Moscow? As for what would fix the US bandwidth, doesn't matter, it isn't going to change. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Jun 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
I bet you don't even Pajala Densly populated Urban metropolis and crown of the north, etc, Pajala itself is just short of 2000 inhabitants, Pajala Municipality fiber coverage is actually rather spread out:  (Count the green dots) Further south, there's nothing to Åmål about.  Åmål is quite bad at Fiber but got pretty good 4G coverage. DSL coverage map:  Selected the one point that stuck out, but as you can see it got plenty of Fiber and 4G coverage instead. And here's one service provider (Tele2) wireless internet coverage map:  (Valleys and mountains effect not shown) Handy map thingy: http://bredbandskartan.pts.se/ Pimpmust fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Jun 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Fiber is dirt cheap in Russia, 30 Mbits is about 350-400 rubles roughly 10-12 bucks. Even considering the different in cost of living, it is much cheaper. I have a friend in Bed-Stuy currently getting 40 down / 10 up cable for $60 a month, and of course here in the Appalachians I'm paying $30 a month for 30 down / 8 up with comcast here in the Appalachians (60 and 105 megabit services are available but ehh I'd rather not pay much more for internet). And this is not to mention that AT&T here can get me 35 megabit / 15 megabit when a ridgeline's not in the way to the tower.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Shockingly it was a lot easier to handle a country with 9.5 million people and a full 85% of the population in urban areas. You don't know what the gently caress you're talking about.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
That is becoming readily apparent. But, back to the Metropolis, Urban Sprawl, capitol of the North: Pajala. I took a quick googling and found that its inhabitants are locked into a gruesome socialist system (only fit for populations <10 million) that forces them to pick between the following companies and options:  (Red marked area shows that 1/1 and 100/100 options are also available, if you ask for them). Special deal prices in big numbers, ordinary prices (for pretty much the whole country) below. (The actual secret is that Pajala got 2 million dollars in EU development money for broadband  )
Pimpmust fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Jun 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
Benito Hitlerstalin posted:You don't know what the gently caress you're talking about. You're clearly the one that doesn't here. Pimpmust posted:
Shockingly enough, when the same is done here, you get similar results.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I have a friend in Bed-Stuy currently getting 40 down / 10 up cable for $60 a month, and of course here in the Appalachians I'm paying $30 a month for 30 down / 8 up with comcast here in the Appalachians (60 and 105 megabit services are available but ehh I'd rather not pay much more for internet). Yeah, so 6x to 3x more expensive for the same service. In Moscow you can get 240 Mbit with 85 channels (including 22 HD channels) for about 30 bucks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Yeah, so 6x to 3x more expensive for the same service. In Moscow you can get 240 Mbit with 85 channels (including 22 HD channels) for about 30 bucks. In certain areas, sure. But I quite doubt it's actually available all over.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:In certain areas, sure. But I quite doubt it's actually available all over. True, there are plenty of places in Russia with limited access but fiber has been spreading out very rapidly. That said, I think a apples to apples comparison is more valid between rural and urban areas, what is Stockholm versus San Francisco? How about Northern Sweden and Rural Montana?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:True, there are plenty of places in Russia with limited access but fiber has been spreading out very rapidly. Well Montana's got some pretty hefty rural fiber co-operatives going on recently: http://billingsgazette.com/news/sta...afee9e13b2.html They've not got it ready yet but it's due by 2016, in the meantime they're offering standard DSL.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:You're clearly the one that doesn't here. How is a small population a plus in this regard? If anything, a small total population exacerbates the challenges already posed by a geographically extensive and sparsely populated area. Explain this to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:Sweden has even lower population density than the US and internet is cheap here, even in rural areas. In cities you can get fiber in a lot of places for really cheap, but outside the big cities it's mostly DSL everywhere. It's cheap because the infrastructure is already in place (copper cables for the plain old telephone network) and the old phone monopoly (that is no longer a monopoly) is required by law to provide access to it at the same rate for any ISP. Hence there's decent competition on the DSL market even in a country with a population of about 9 million. Thats the same situation as the UK (just without the population density). The old telecoms company (BT) is forced to charge rates set by the regulator and they are open to anyone. They even have to allow full access to their polls and ducts if companies are willing to, although none are as the gains for building their own piggybacked network are minimal. The real kicker for the UK though is that back in the late 90's BT went to the UK government with a proposition, they wanted to remove all the copper cable throughout the UK and replace it with a full fiber network, which back then would of been expensive as hell to do as Fiber to the premises was in its infancy. The key was though, they wanted the ability to broadcast TV as well. UK government said no, instead the UK has good broadband instead of probably now 1GB to every home in the UK. While BT is now a TV broadcaster as well as that restriction on them was lifted a few years ago. BTW. BT's has run a limited trial of Terrabit to the premises connections, just to understand the infrastructure requirements etc, that's how forward thinking they are; Completely company outlook than the US where it seems for many of the US telecoms companies running a 1 premise Gigabit trial would be something some of them would be proud of. ukle fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Jun 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
Benito Hitlerstalin posted:How is a small population a plus in this regard? If anything, a small total population exacerbates the challenges already posed by a geographically extensive and sparsely populated area. There are much less people to serve, and incidentally Sweden's population is more urban than America's. Sweden needs only serve 1.4 million people in rural areas, America has to handle 63 million (45x the people) across 21,702x the rural area. Even when you cut out the absolutely uninhabited rural areas, it's still 9000 to 10,000 times the area to serve. ukle posted:The real kicker for the UK though is that back in the late 90's BT went to the UK government with a proposition, they wanted to remove all the copper cable throughout the UK and replace it with a full fiber network, which back then would of been expensive as hell to do as Fiber to the premises was in its infancy. The key was though, they wanted the ability to broadcast TV as well. UK government said no, instead the UK has good broadband instead of probably now 1GB to every home in the UK. While BT is now a TV broadcaster as well as that restriction on them was lifted a few years ago. Question though: didn't part of their proposal include them demanding more control over who else could access their new fiber network, as existing laws were only covering the copper system? Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Jun 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Question though: didn't part of their proposal include them demanding more control over who else could access their new fiber network, as existing laws were only covering the copper system? As far as I am aware no. They did want a small time window of exclusivity though. The exact details have never been made public and it only become knowledge outside of government and BT a few years after the fact.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:There are much less people to serve, and incidentally Sweden's population is more urban than America's. Sweden needs only serve 1.4 million people in rural areas, America has to handle 63 million (45x the people) across 21,702x the rural area. Even when you cut out the absolutely uninhabited rural areas, it's still 9000 to 10,000 times the area to serve. There are also fewer people to pay for it, along with the cost disadvantages (economies of scale et al.) that entails. This should be fairly obvious. Also, the rate of urbanization differs by what, two or three percentage points at most? Hardly significant.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
Benito Hitlerstalin posted:There are also fewer people to pay for it, along with the cost disadvantages (economies of scale et al.) that entails. This should be fairly obvious. Also, the rate of urbanization differs by what, two or three percentage points at most? Hardly significant. 80% urbanization in America, with a higher proportion of the urban areas being low density cities and suburbs versus 85% urbanization in Sweden with generally more compact development in that urbanization. Also vastly less area to cover, less distances to run poo poo. And on top of that you have very few people in total to cover in rural areas plus greater access to grants for access development with later technology. Plus it's not like people just existing means they're paying to roll out the service in the first place. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Jun 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:80% urbanization in America, with a higher proportion of the urban areas being low density cities and suburbs versus 85% urbanization in Sweden with generally more compact development in that urbanization. Also vastly less area to cover, less distances to run poo poo. And on top of that you have very few people in total to cover in rural areas plus greater access to grants for access development with later technology. UN says 82.4 for the US and 85.2 for Sweden as of 2010. Meanwhile the population density is somewhere around 32.8 per km² for the US and 23.5 per km² for Sweden respectively. On the face of it it looks like Sweden has significantly more area to cover per person. e: point still being; there are no advantages to being few people in total, same as there are no advantages to having large and sparsely populated areas to cover. Same logic, more or less. Cake Smashing Boob fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Jun 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
edit: nvm, contributes nothing to the discussion
TheFluff fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Jun 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 21:07
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Well we don't have terrible broadband speeds and we don't have high prices. So nothing. By what measure would you say our prices are not high?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
Benito Hitlerstalin posted:UN says 82.4 for the US and 85.2 for Sweden as of 2010. Meanwhile the population density is somewhere around 32.8 per km² for the US and 23.5 per km² for Sweden respectively. There are assloads of advantages to having fewer people in total, you simply need much less infrastructure. And Sweden is also significantly smaller in land area which also helps severely. It's essentially insane to say it isn't easier to hook up people when there are much fewer people in a much smaller area, especially when the smaller country also has much less rural area to deal with. down with slavery posted:By what measure would you say our prices are not high? Actual comparison to the world at large.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Actual comparison to the world at large. Wouldn't a comparison to the developed world be far more accurate?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Wouldn't a comparison to the developed world be far more accurate? What do you define as the developed world? There's plenty of developed world countries where internet service is unambiguously far worse for instance, like Canada, Australia, and NZ. Edit: and there's things like how the IMF doesn't consider most of Eastern Europe including Russia developed. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Jun 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
Most of the "developed world" (read: Western Europe) is also extremely compact.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Most of the "developed world" (read: Western Europe) is also extremely compact. Yeah under some definitions: 
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:There are assloads of advantages to having fewer people in total, you simply need much less infrastructure. And Sweden is also significantly smaller in land area which also helps severely. It's essentially insane to say it isn't easier to hook up people when there are much fewer people in a much smaller area, especially when the smaller country also has much less rural area to deal with. Shouldn't be a problem hooking the loving boonies up with cable then, seeing as they need much less of it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
Benito Hitlerstalin posted:Shouldn't be a problem hooking the loving boonies up with cable then, seeing as they need much less of it. You know, aside from the massively more land to cover. By the way, we do have 90% of ours hooked up with it despite all the issues!
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
Benito Hitlerstalin posted:Shouldn't be a problem hooking the loving boonies up with cable then, seeing as they need much less of it. The "over a much smaller area" part is key there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Wouldn't a comparison to the developed world be far more accurate? If you adjust for cost of living, also. (Btw, as I posted in the net neutrality thread when someone blamed Wheeler - when was he a lobbyist for the wired broadband industry? loving never, you idiots. He left NCTA 30 years ago.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:What do you define as the developed world? There's plenty of developed world countries where internet service is unambiguously far worse for instance, like Canada, Australia, and NZ. Granted, the fact the US doesn't fare well versus a "non-developed" country isn't exactly a strong point even if it does better than most of them. (Also, Russia is at least an industrialized state even if it has got some serious issues.) As Russia complicates the "compactness" issue, you can cite Soviet era housing making easier...but then you would have to admit the Soviets did something right. In addition, it is kind of silly to ignore city to city comparisons. It very well be that Toronto has worse/more expensive internet than Chicago, but does it really explain its relationship to Frankfurt? Does the "space" of America really effect its major urban areas especially big urban amalgamations like SoCal or BosWash? quote:If you adjust for cost of living, also. Yeah, you can play around the numbers a bit obviously. I think at least part of it is that Russia and the East Asian countries combined the relatively dense/planned nature of their cities with focus investment which maximized the efficiency of upgrading their systems. Those are the countries where it is the cheapest and usually the fastest (Russia has the capacity I think but most people usually cut costs by getting the lowest tiered plans). However, at the same time you can't really dismiss this because to be honest it shows real efficiency in planning. Also there is the issue of just urban areas, I could see rural areas dragging the US down but what would a comparison of urban areas look like? (I think a national study in this sense is actually fairly useless, it should be by urban area.) New York is a very high density city even if it isn't quite as planned as Seoul or Moscow. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 23:09 on Jun 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:As Russia complicates the "compactness" issue Most of the Russian population actually lives in a fairly compact part of the country.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
Kalman posted:If you adjust for cost of living, also. You're right, particularly about his position on net neutrality, but there's a reason people bring it up. The ideal person to work in a regulatory position is not someone who has spent a large part of their career working as a lobbyist (although I'm more bothered that he only got the position because he raised 500k for Obama). Much of that might have been working on behalf of the cell phone industry, but it still betrays a certain mindset in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
I remember when American exceptionalism used to mean this country did great things. Now it seems to be an excuse for why we can't have nice things like south korea or japan.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Granted, the fact the US doesn't fare well versus a "non-developed" country isn't exactly a strong point even if it does better than most of them. (Also, Russia is at least an industrialized state even if it has got some serious issues.) As Russia complicates the "compactness" issue, you can cite Soviet era housing making easier...but then you would have to admit the Soviets did something right. Well, what IS Toronto or Chicago's relation to Frankfurt? I mean, Toronto takes in 243 square miles from city core to sleepy suburbs with 2.5 million people, Chicago's got 2.75 million in 234 square miles, Frankfurt's got 688,000 in 96 square miles - what's the situation in the suburbs of Frankfurt that would be within the boundaries of Toronto or Chicago? Where are we measuring from in each city? And Moscow may do alright for itself but what of Yekaterinburg or Vladivostok? Peven Stan posted:I remember when American exceptionalism used to mean this country did great things. Now it seems to be an excuse for why we can't have nice things like south korea or japan. The nice things you think those countries have are only in a few select places.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:You know, aside from the massively more land to cover. By the way, we do have 90% of ours hooked up with it despite all the issues! computer parts posted:The "over a much smaller area" part is key there. Yes, I know, and Sweden has more area to cover per person. Ergo it becomes comparatively more expensive and/or difficult. Being few people in total doesn't alleviate this loving problem. It's not a loving plus. On the contrary it exacerbates it, since the comparatively higher costs have to be absorbed by fewer people. It's some really loving basic poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Most of the Russian population actually lives in a fairly compact part of the country. Eh "relatively compact" is still a pretty loose term, European Russia everything from Belorussian border to the Urals lets say, is still a giant area. quote:Well, what IS Toronto or Chicago's relation to Frankfurt? I mean, Toronto takes in 243 square miles from city core to sleepy suburbs with 2.5 million people, Chicago's got 2.75 million in 234 square miles, Frankfurt's got 688,000 in 96 square miles - what's the situation in the suburbs of Frankfurt that would be within the boundaries of Toronto or Chicago? Where are we measuring from in each city? Is the size different in that aspect going to mean such a divergence? If so, isn't that a pretty big critique of Suburbia since it is primarily to blame for the issue? If you want to say a lack of planning and dense cities are the reason, fine but that doesn't actual dismiss the issue. quote:And Moscow may do alright for itself but what of Yekaterinburg or Vladivostok? I can only comment on places I know of, but St.Peterburg was similar. As far as figuring them out, it is just going to have to be researched from what I see from MTS.RU that Vladivostok is more expensive 500 rubles for 5 MBits. Although, it is also one of the more remote cities in the world especially from the rest of Russia. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 23:21 on Jun 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 21:58 |
|
|
Benito Hitlerstalin posted:Yes, I know, and Sweden has more area to cover per person. Ergo it becomes comparatively more expensive and/or difficult. Being few people in total doesn't alleviate this loving problem. It's not a loving plus. On the contrary it exacerbates it, since the comparatively higher costs have to be absorbed by fewer people in total. You don't pay per person covered, you pay per unit of area. That's some really basic poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 23:14
|
|