Interesting posts about the difference bet. US and Japan. I guess I can't blame everything on advertisement and competition ;-). I still think those numbers (i.e., bandwidth) should be made more visible to the consumers' eyes.
Regarding the "uses" of extra bandwidth...you'll see. If you have it, you'll use it. Back in the 9600bps days, I thought that 128kbps or even 64kbps is more bandwidth than I'd ever need... hehehe. Also, historically, the infrastructure needs to be there BEFORE there are enough content providers that fully utilyze the infrastructure. Build it, and they shall come.
A basic ADSL plan with a non major telco here in Australia is US$50pm for 512/128 plan with 6gb on peak 10gb ish off peak download limit..
The major telcos actually cost more and have smaller d/l allowances!
Also factor in that most places in the middle and west coast cannot get cable broadband and have to use adsl (if that is available), I cant get either of them until a adsl equipped exchange come on line in in my area late October.
Well, I'm in the SF Area and I pay $50 USD/month for 768/128 from SBC, so we're in the same boat. (but no Gb limits though)
Sorry, but the equipment of "the 1940s" is still around. Here, on my street, Verizon did not get around to replacing the Party Line until 5 years ago. For more than 500,000 people in this region, there is only one (1!) Fiber trunk into/ out of the area -- and it was cut today by a crashing truck in a small town about half an hour from here. Result? No LD, no local, no Cellular, no Internet for half a day for nearly 500,000 people.
It doesn't take but one ancient piece of equipment to virtually "age" even the newest tech so that things like DSL will NEVER be possible in certain areas.
Much of the phone wiring in rural America is not new, and may even be the original that was installed - if that wiring works for phones, but not for other services that demand tighter tolerances, rural folks are SOL, as usual.
Damn city slicker punks. Probably Yankees, too. <-- this be a smartass joke for those who cannot take sarcasm and facetism.
edit: denoted joke, replaced "removing" with "replacing" in sentence two.
here in the metropolitan area of Kansas, we get COX cable for about $29.99US a month on top of the cable bill, which we get the cheapest service possible(The $10 one, local channels, plus sci-fi, c-span(zzz), more).
The speed is 1.5M/1.5M and it's pretty good. I don't even want to know what it would be like to have a 100M connection(I MEAN I'LL TAKE TWO). Well, the problem with that is that most people on the internet don't have a 100M serving connection, so it would kinda be pointless except for some stuff, right?
I know companies in Wichita generally get uplink ISDN 768k, so getting a 100M would basically be buying for the future, and trans.files between friends with the same connection.
Steve Forbes had this to say in his recent commentary :
Quote:
Fantastic Fiber Future Is Here--But Not in U.S.
Washington and the federal communications commission should look to South Korea to see what the future could be like with true telecom deregulation. In the U.S. a T-1 line, which provides broadband capacity on your phone line for computer data, costs more than $600 a month. In South Korea one can get broadband with four times the capacity of a T-1 line for $39 a month. Put another way, for $39 a month a South Korean family or business can possess computer capacity that would cost more than $2,500 here.
This absurd situation is entirely of our own making. The FCC tried to move through some sensible pro-broadband deregulation a couple of months ago, but Democrats and a renegade Republican commissioner threw sand into the works. The FCC is now trying to find ways to incentivize companies to go that last step and get fiber-optic connections into homes and offices. But to see real progress the White House needs to make clear that it wants genuine deregulation now; the Administration has given the impression that it's content with the disastrous status quo.
If you run into a congressman or senator, ask him or her why South Koreans can get infinitely easier access to the Internet, with much greater capacity than we have, at 1/60 of our cost.
I'd support the dismantling of public TV if they'd instead route the dollars used for it into building a nationwide, free high-speed Internet "freeway", accessible anywhere at anytime.
I mean, how many more Yanni concerts and 1974 episodes of some long-forgotten British sitcom do we have to continue sitting through?
Discovery, TLC, The History Channel, A&E and other cable networks do this type of stuff (concerts, biographies, history, home improvement, quirky/niche programming, etc.) better anyway. Let them provide culture, high art and sci/tech-based programming for those that enjoy it.
Screw PBS. The money could be better spent.
That is perhaps the STUPIDEST take I've ever read.
Not everyone has cable and not everyone needs to see documentaries like "The Search for the Giant Squid" that have corrupted the original intent of the Discovery Channel.
Commercialism should not be the only use of the PUBLIC airwaves. The free-market would work better if it actually was free and unless or until the FCC actually operates in the public interest and not corporate interest, there is a place for PUBLIC television.
pscates: I'd stick to laptop designing if I were you...
As far as 802.16 goes, it has a lot of potential for adding to people's wireless lives. However, it will get stuck if it is not compatable with the 802.11 standard as well. Now, how I could see this happening is you have a huge network of these 802.16 Access Points. However, since everyone is on the 802.11 network, you would have to have some sort of bridge or gateway into the .16 network.
Does this sound familar? It should, because your standard internal network is all piped through a firewall and then into a router (sometimes these are combined). That is exactly what this 802.16 -> 802.11 bridge is; it is a router into the larger network.
This, to me at least, seems more feasible AND more cost-effictive in the long run.
Has anyone (like the ieee) considered the effects of the radiation used? I've heard WiFi w/ large Yagi antennae's are no t a good idea in the home because 2.4Ghz is cellphone/microwave frequency and it excites water molecules, basically slow-cooking your meat.
If this spec is good for 30 miles, what insane levels of radiation are we talking? What current devices is this going to interfere w/ ? Is someone w/ metal cufflinks going to have sparks flying off their sleeves?
That is perhaps the STUPIDEST take I've ever read.
Not everyone has cable and not everyone needs to see documentaries like "The Search for the Giant Squid" that have corrupted the original intent of the Discovery Channel.
Commercialism should not be the only use of the PUBLIC airwaves. The free-market would work better if it actually was free and unless or until the FCC actually operates in the public interest and not corporate interest, there is a place for PUBLIC television.
pscates: I'd stick to laptop designing if I were you...
Nope. You're wrong.
But thanks for the kinda back-ass compliment (I think).
Besides, is it always a true "either/or"?
And this squid thing? I've not seen it. Is it good?
BTW, "Yanni Live" is on this Sunday afternoon. Check your local listings.
I'd have a bit more respect for PBS and NPR if they'd quit trying to deny they have a statist/leftist bias. Just be proud of what you are, and everyone will be happier.
Ontopic
Since I'm paying $60 a month for 400 mmps download and 128kbps upload via 2-way satellite, almost anything is an improvement.
Well, those of you with any type of high speed internet should count your lucky stars...
I live in San Jose, CA (that's part of Silicon Valley, even) and in my neighborhood DSL is not available and neither is digital cable. So a satellite link for $80 a month is my only option other than the dialup that I currently use. Ah but - the satellite option is "not compatible" with the Macintosh OS. Sigh.
So to get high speed I have to drive to my office every day in Walnut Creek. If I ever get high speed here in San Jose I will never have to commute (to WC at least) again.
I'm so happy that Apple saw fit to equip the Airport Base Station with a regular telephone line, it might be slow by by gosh it works...
It would be very interesting to know the economics of setting this kind of system up. Since the telecoms have put billions into the infrastructure of mobile systems already, I can see that they would be reluctant to put more billions into another one that would make their first systems less necessary....before they got them paid off. Its a catch-22 though, because who else has the money to do it and what would it cost.
For me I could afford about $60/month for my telecommunications budget, including phone, isp, etc. and even if it was fast and seemless and available everywhere for me to network on the web from my mobile Powerbook, I still couldn't afford anything more than that. That is still a long ways off.
OFFtopic
jccbin: It is almost impossible for PBS to be "statist" and "leftist" at the same time. "Leftist", yes, I grant that much of the documentaries and such has a leftist taste. Anything that challenges the politics and powers of the moment is by definition leftist to a certain degree, but PBS has gone after democrats as much as republicans.
However "statist" seems to refer more toward the adulation of military and government as seen on "news" shows on FOX and others who use people like Ollie North as "reporters." THAT is Statism...three steps away from facism.
PBS is actually a strange situation. It isn't the voice of the government and it isn't the voice of the corporate powers ...beyond the ADM ads... it is a somewhat independent voice funded partially by taxes and partially by people who specifically don't like to see commercial broadcasters dominate the PUBLIC airwaves. It can't help but be difficult to find the centrist path and not invoke the ire of those who actually think Bill O'Reilly has no spin.
If I ever get high speed here in San Jose I will never have to commute (to WC at least) again.
Where in San Jose do you live? I live in San Jose (almaden area), and we just got DSL recently from SBC. Actually we had it from Flashcom because PacBell said we were to far (yet flashcom coudl service us...) About the time that flashcom went out of business, Pacbell was able to service us (go figure).
What sucks is I am goign to be moving up to Sacamento this fall, and will have no access to internet, except for Satalite. What are the speeds on that like? Latency?
I'd support the dismantling of public TV if they'd instead route the dollars used for it into building a nationwide, free high-speed Internet "freeway", accessible anywhere at anytime.
I mean, how many more Yanni concerts and 1974 episodes of some long-forgotten British sitcom do we have to continue sitting through?
Has anyone (like the ieee) considered the effects of the radiation used? I've heard WiFi w/ large Yagi antennae's are no t a good idea in the home because 2.4Ghz is cellphone/microwave frequency and it excites water molecules, basically slow-cooking your meat.
If this spec is good for 30 miles, what insane levels of radiation are we talking? What current devices is this going to interfere w/ ? Is someone w/ metal cufflinks going to have sparks flying off their sleeves?
I suspect a lot of ISPs will run 802.16a in the 5.8GHz band. The power limits there are about the same as for the 2.4GHz band -- relatively low. It won't even be powerful enough to penetrate buildings; that's why you'll need an outdoor antenna. It's pretty harmless.
It would be very interesting to know the economics of setting this kind of system up. Since the telecoms have put billions into the infrastructure of mobile systems already, I can see that they would be reluctant to put more billions into another one that would make their first systems less necessary....before they got them paid off. Its a catch-22 though, because who else has the money to do it and what would it cost.
Look at the Aperto and Alvarion equipment and maybe divide the cosst by 2 or 3. Hmmm, I don't know if it's possible to find out how much that stuff costs in the first place. I don't think telcos are going to touch this stuff (Sprint already got burned on wireless broadband), but it will be used by new, small, nimble ISPs.
Look at the Aperto and Alvarion equipment and maybe divide the cosst by 2 or 3. Hmmm, I don't know if it's possible to find out how much that stuff costs in the first place. I don't think telcos are going to touch this stuff (Sprint already got burned on wireless broadband), but it will be used by new, small, nimble ISPs.
I could see some of the local ISPs putting together a deal to put up wireless in the areas the big guys do not service. That would give them what amounts to a captive audience to build upon and move into other areas as they can. Although they could have a significant impact on a local market they would probably "stay below the radar" of the big guys until they are well established.
Lots of comments aboout the telecom industry sucking royally in the USA. While true, a lot of it is not necessarily the industried fault. Much of the "damage" to the industry has been done through legislation. Companies like SBC and such have to share their lines with any Telco out there wanting to offer service. Think about it SBC or some other RBOC digs the trnaches, lays the lines, cabinest, switches... and little joe schmoe comes along and gets use of it by law. If the line goes dead, the RBOC is theone having to do the maintenance and pay the FCC fees for loss of service. Why do you suppose that for a number of years the quality of service youre getting has gone to pot. RBOC's arent spending $$ on their physical plant cause it will ultimately benefit their competitors. This state also compounds a VERY big problem in the USA that many of the other countries on the planet dont have to deal with. AGE of the plant. USA has had phones in homes for decades while other countries have not. We still have paper insulated cables out there. Heck I have even seen straight wire out there. Its bad enough passing voice over some of the old equipment out there, try data and youre toast. Other countried are just now laying their first runs at service and can use the newest technology while here we are faced with having to revamp existing plan almost EVERYWHERE. The good news is that data may be saved from this idiotic legislation that has doomed voice lines,at least for now. DSL and other "data" services are the only growing segments of the phone industry. This is because it appears that anything labeled as "data" may not have to be shared. Have you seen the adds for voice over the internet? Guess what that is classified as data. If the ruling does come down that RBOC's done have to share their data lines you may see some serious $$ spent on converting stuff to "data" ASAFP so they dont have to share it.
Dont mean to sound like an apologist for the RBOC's, but the problem isnt lack of competition, but one of FORCED competition through legislative interventions without any understanding or forsight toward the consequences.
Comments
Regarding the "uses" of extra bandwidth...you'll see. If you have it, you'll use it. Back in the 9600bps days, I thought that 128kbps or even 64kbps is more bandwidth than I'd ever need... hehehe. Also, historically, the infrastructure needs to be there BEFORE there are enough content providers that fully utilyze the infrastructure. Build it, and they shall come.
Originally posted by gsxrboy
Man you guys dont know how lucky you have it...
A basic ADSL plan with a non major telco here in Australia is US$50pm for 512/128 plan with 6gb on peak 10gb ish off peak download limit..
The major telcos actually cost more and have smaller d/l allowances!
Also factor in that most places in the middle and west coast cannot get cable broadband and have to use adsl (if that is available), I cant get either of them until a adsl equipped exchange come on line in in my area late October.
Well, I'm in the SF Area and I pay $50 USD/month for 768/128 from SBC, so we're in the same boat. (but no Gb limits though)
It doesn't take but one ancient piece of equipment to virtually "age" even the newest tech so that things like DSL will NEVER be possible in certain areas.
Much of the phone wiring in rural America is not new, and may even be the original that was installed - if that wiring works for phones, but not for other services that demand tighter tolerances, rural folks are SOL, as usual.
Damn city slicker punks. Probably Yankees, too.
edit: denoted joke, replaced "removing" with "replacing" in sentence two.
Originally posted by wmf
Faster DSL won't save the telcos if it still takes a month of buck-passing to get it installed.
Only a month!?
The speed is 1.5M/1.5M and it's pretty good. I don't even want to know what it would be like to have a 100M connection(I MEAN I'LL TAKE TWO). Well, the problem with that is that most people on the internet don't have a 100M serving connection, so it would kinda be pointless except for some stuff, right?
I know companies in Wichita generally get uplink ISDN 768k, so getting a 100M would basically be buying for the future, and trans.files between friends with the same connection.
Fantastic Fiber Future Is Here--But Not in U.S.
Washington and the federal communications commission should look to South Korea to see what the future could be like with true telecom deregulation. In the U.S. a T-1 line, which provides broadband capacity on your phone line for computer data, costs more than $600 a month. In South Korea one can get broadband with four times the capacity of a T-1 line for $39 a month. Put another way, for $39 a month a South Korean family or business can possess computer capacity that would cost more than $2,500 here.
This absurd situation is entirely of our own making. The FCC tried to move through some sensible pro-broadband deregulation a couple of months ago, but Democrats and a renegade Republican commissioner threw sand into the works. The FCC is now trying to find ways to incentivize companies to go that last step and get fiber-optic connections into homes and offices. But to see real progress the White House needs to make clear that it wants genuine deregulation now; the Administration has given the impression that it's content with the disastrous status quo.
If you run into a congressman or senator, ask him or her why South Koreans can get infinitely easier access to the Internet, with much greater capacity than we have, at 1/60 of our cost.
Originally posted by pscates
I'd support the dismantling of public TV if they'd instead route the dollars used for it into building a nationwide, free high-speed Internet "freeway", accessible anywhere at anytime.
I mean, how many more Yanni concerts and 1974 episodes of some long-forgotten British sitcom do we have to continue sitting through?
Discovery, TLC, The History Channel, A&E and other cable networks do this type of stuff (concerts, biographies, history, home improvement, quirky/niche programming, etc.) better anyway. Let them provide culture, high art and sci/tech-based programming for those that enjoy it.
Screw PBS. The money could be better spent.
That is perhaps the STUPIDEST take I've ever read.
Not everyone has cable and not everyone needs to see documentaries like "The Search for the Giant Squid" that have corrupted the original intent of the Discovery Channel.
Commercialism should not be the only use of the PUBLIC airwaves. The free-market would work better if it actually was free and unless or until the FCC actually operates in the public interest and not corporate interest, there is a place for PUBLIC television.
pscates: I'd stick to laptop designing if I were you...
Does this sound familar? It should, because your standard internal network is all piped through a firewall and then into a router (sometimes these are combined). That is exactly what this 802.16 -> 802.11 bridge is; it is a router into the larger network.
This, to me at least, seems more feasible AND more cost-effictive in the long run.
If this spec is good for 30 miles, what insane levels of radiation are we talking? What current devices is this going to interfere w/ ? Is someone w/ metal cufflinks going to have sparks flying off their sleeves?
Originally posted by MacGregor
That is perhaps the STUPIDEST take I've ever read.
Not everyone has cable and not everyone needs to see documentaries like "The Search for the Giant Squid" that have corrupted the original intent of the Discovery Channel.
Commercialism should not be the only use of the PUBLIC airwaves. The free-market would work better if it actually was free and unless or until the FCC actually operates in the public interest and not corporate interest, there is a place for PUBLIC television.
pscates: I'd stick to laptop designing if I were you...
Nope. You're wrong.
But thanks for the kinda back-ass compliment (I think).
Besides, is it always a true "either/or"?
And this squid thing? I've not seen it. Is it good?
BTW, "Yanni Live" is on this Sunday afternoon. Check your local listings.
I'd have a bit more respect for PBS and NPR if they'd quit trying to deny they have a statist/leftist bias. Just be proud of what you are, and everyone will be happier.
Ontopic
Since I'm paying $60 a month for 400 mmps download and 128kbps upload via 2-way satellite, almost anything is an improvement.
I live in San Jose, CA (that's part of Silicon Valley, even) and in my neighborhood DSL is not available and neither is digital cable. So a satellite link for $80 a month is my only option other than the dialup that I currently use. Ah but - the satellite option is "not compatible" with the Macintosh OS. Sigh.
So to get high speed I have to drive to my office every day in Walnut Creek. If I ever get high speed here in San Jose I will never have to commute (to WC at least) again.
I'm so happy that Apple saw fit to equip the Airport Base Station with a regular telephone line, it might be slow by by gosh it works...
Joe
For me I could afford about $60/month for my telecommunications budget, including phone, isp, etc. and even if it was fast and seemless and available everywhere for me to network on the web from my mobile Powerbook, I still couldn't afford anything more than that. That is still a long ways off.
OFFtopic
jccbin: It is almost impossible for PBS to be "statist" and "leftist" at the same time. "Leftist", yes, I grant that much of the documentaries and such has a leftist taste. Anything that challenges the politics and powers of the moment is by definition leftist to a certain degree, but PBS has gone after democrats as much as republicans.
However "statist" seems to refer more toward the adulation of military and government as seen on "news" shows on FOX and others who use people like Ollie North as "reporters." THAT is Statism...three steps away from facism.
PBS is actually a strange situation. It isn't the voice of the government and it isn't the voice of the corporate powers ...beyond the ADM ads... it is a somewhat independent voice funded partially by taxes and partially by people who specifically don't like to see commercial broadcasters dominate the PUBLIC airwaves. It can't help but be difficult to find the centrist path and not invoke the ire of those who actually think Bill O'Reilly has no spin.
I shall not go so far off topic again.
Originally posted by Powelligator
If I ever get high speed here in San Jose I will never have to commute (to WC at least) again.
Where in San Jose do you live? I live in San Jose (almaden area), and we just got DSL recently from SBC. Actually we had it from Flashcom because PacBell said we were to far (yet flashcom coudl service us...) About the time that flashcom went out of business, Pacbell was able to service us (go figure).
What sucks is I am goign to be moving up to Sacamento this fall, and will have no access to internet, except for Satalite. What are the speeds on that like? Latency?
I hope this wireless thing takes off quickly.
Local internet speed test today (Server 20 miles away): 5 Mbit/s up and down.
Global speed test (from Texas) 1.6 Mbit/s up and down (damn slow internet backbone).
With todays exchange rate: $7/month
Originally posted by pscates
I'd support the dismantling of public TV if they'd instead route the dollars used for it into building a nationwide, free high-speed Internet "freeway", accessible anywhere at anytime.
I mean, how many more Yanni concerts and 1974 episodes of some long-forgotten British sitcom do we have to continue sitting through?
Screw PBS. The money could be better spent.
Amen.
Originally posted by 1337_5L4Xx0R
Has anyone (like the ieee) considered the effects of the radiation used? I've heard WiFi w/ large Yagi antennae's are no t a good idea in the home because 2.4Ghz is cellphone/microwave frequency and it excites water molecules, basically slow-cooking your meat.
If this spec is good for 30 miles, what insane levels of radiation are we talking? What current devices is this going to interfere w/ ? Is someone w/ metal cufflinks going to have sparks flying off their sleeves?
I suspect a lot of ISPs will run 802.16a in the 5.8GHz band. The power limits there are about the same as for the 2.4GHz band -- relatively low. It won't even be powerful enough to penetrate buildings; that's why you'll need an outdoor antenna. It's pretty harmless.
Originally posted by MacGregor
It would be very interesting to know the economics of setting this kind of system up. Since the telecoms have put billions into the infrastructure of mobile systems already, I can see that they would be reluctant to put more billions into another one that would make their first systems less necessary....before they got them paid off. Its a catch-22 though, because who else has the money to do it and what would it cost.
Look at the Aperto and Alvarion equipment and maybe divide the cosst by 2 or 3. Hmmm, I don't know if it's possible to find out how much that stuff costs in the first place. I don't think telcos are going to touch this stuff (Sprint already got burned on wireless broadband), but it will be used by new, small, nimble ISPs.
Originally posted by wmf
Look at the Aperto and Alvarion equipment and maybe divide the cosst by 2 or 3. Hmmm, I don't know if it's possible to find out how much that stuff costs in the first place. I don't think telcos are going to touch this stuff (Sprint already got burned on wireless broadband), but it will be used by new, small, nimble ISPs.
I could see some of the local ISPs putting together a deal to put up wireless in the areas the big guys do not service. That would give them what amounts to a captive audience to build upon and move into other areas as they can. Although they could have a significant impact on a local market they would probably "stay below the radar" of the big guys until they are well established.
It would be nice anyway.
Dont mean to sound like an apologist for the RBOC's, but the problem isnt lack of competition, but one of FORCED competition through legislative interventions without any understanding or forsight toward the consequences.