The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-19-2014, 08:44 PM   #1
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,935

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default Why Internet Service in France is Ten Times Better Than in the U.S.

So, when I moved to Toulouse, I had a difficult time choosing between broadband and mobile packages offered by Orange, SFR, Bouyges, Numericable, and Free. My 100 Mbps service prompts some disparaging frowns from new French friends who have 1Gbps connections for the same price as I pay, thanks to the fiber optic line that runs to their house. My 500-year-old apartment building doesn’t have fiber.

Compare that to telecom policy in the U.S. Years ago, the government broke up Ma Bell, only to end up with more regional monopolies. Then, the U.S. government passed the Telecom Act in 1996, in theory to prompt more competition. For a brief moment, it looked like that might happen. But eventually, rules about costs of sharing networks and other factors such as weak enforcement of competition rules drove many telecom startups out of business.

Instead, the incumbents went on a consolidation binge, with the U.S. government demanding only modest concessions as they rubber-stamped deal after deal. Today, your choices are pretty limited. As a result, the incentives to invest in network infrastructure are low, and costs are high.

As the Times story says: “For relatively high-speed Internet at 25 megabits per second, 75 percent of homes have one option at most, according to the Federal Communications Commission — usually Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T, or Verizon.”

Of course, it would seem impossible that someone will stand up in the near future and demand that the U.S. government play a stronger role. Politicians and regulators would be cowered by an army of telecom lobbyists and pundits who would chew their heads off.

But the real problem is that the average American has bought into this false choice: government vs. competition. And so, they are not going to insist on the new regulations and stronger enforcement that might a lead to more competition.

Instead, expect that for years to come, you’ll continue to overpay for crappy broadband. This is the price you pay for being suckers, and it’s a big one.

http://venturebeat.com/2014/11/12/wh...ppy-broadband/
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 11-19-2014, 10:30 PM   #2
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 4,429

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Having 3.5 times the population density also tends to help.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2014, 12:31 AM   #3
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
Mo' holla fo' yo' dolla!
 
L.A. BRONCOS FAN's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: In a bunker in an undisclosed location
Posts: 55,069
Default

Quote:
But the real problem is that the average American has bought into this false choice: government vs. competition. And so, they are not going to insist on the new regulations and stronger enforcement that might a lead to more competition.
More confirmation that America is a corporatist - vs. capitalist - society.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2014, 06:46 AM   #4
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 37,267
Default

Net Neutrality won't give you faster internet. It won't force them to offer you fiber optic connections. All it will do is keep Charter or some other provider with giving some companies packets priority over smaller companies. They are afraid start ups would get squeezed by the big boys.

Let's see the evidence that they plan on doing that before we make it a huge issue. From my understanding FCC regulations they are following are good until 2018? We don't even have a problem right now but talking about France and how they have faster internet, cheaper or whatever isn't even the issue.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2014, 08:25 AM   #5
Garcia Bronco
Hokie since 1993
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 47,090

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Tom Jackson
Default

I would care if it was 11 times
Garcia Bronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2014, 08:26 AM   #6
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 4,429

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
Net Neutrality won't give you faster internet. It won't force them to offer you fiber optic connections. All it will do is keep Charter or some other provider with giving some companies packets priority over smaller companies. They are afraid start ups would get squeezed by the big boys.

Let's see the evidence that they plan on doing that before we make it a huge issue. From my understanding FCC regulations they are following are good until 2018? We don't even have a problem right now but talking about France and how they have faster internet, cheaper or whatever isn't even the issue.
First they come to 'prevent' big problems they predict coming. Then they say they have to set up a comprehensive regulatory framework. Then they say they need to pay for that comprehensive regulatory framework. Then the taxing begins. Then the taxing enforcement begins. And the enforcement will require just a little more information from everyone about what they're all doing online.

It's the way these things are always done. Bureaucracy ever advances. In the real world, AOL was the walled garden model these kids all say we need government to prevent. In the real world, their customers got tired of it and found other options.
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2014, 08:46 AM   #7
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,935

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Same old neoliberal drivel: Our philosophy is right. Therefore, we ignore all evidence to the contrary.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2014, 08:53 AM   #8
Smiling Assassin27
Helmet Tester
 
Smiling Assassin27's Avatar
 
Hurry Hurry

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: In a van down by the river
Posts: 12,577

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Hemanuel Sandrs
Default

Not enough competition in the marketplace. The US market is bound up by statism and corporatism. Reap the consequences, America.
Smiling Assassin27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2014, 08:55 AM   #9
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 4,429

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
Same old neoliberal drivel: Our philosophy is right. Therefore, we ignore all evidence to the contrary.
Some people remember when you kids were crying about AOL's 'monopoly'
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2014, 10:15 AM   #10
Smiling Assassin27
Helmet Tester
 
Smiling Assassin27's Avatar
 
Hurry Hurry

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: In a van down by the river
Posts: 12,577

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Hemanuel Sandrs
Default

Long but really good watch:

Smiling Assassin27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2014, 12:12 PM   #11
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,123

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smiling Assassin27 View Post
Long but really good watch:

I watched a bit, of particular interest was his interpretation of fast/slow lane metaphor. He seems to think there is a big issue with creating a fast/slow lane to divide low bandwidth things like web, email, etc. from high bandwidth things like streaming video.

That is not the issue. The issue is creating a slow/fast lane where the division of slow/fast is having SOME high bandwidth stuff in the fast lane, and SOME high bandwidth stuff in the slow lane wherein the choice of which goes where is arbitrary and dependent upon paying what is essentially a bribe.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2014, 02:51 PM   #12
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,935

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
I watched a bit, of particular interest was his interpretation of fast/slow lane metaphor. He seems to think there is a big issue with creating a fast/slow lane to divide low bandwidth things like web, email, etc. from high bandwidth things like streaming video.

That is not the issue. The issue is creating a slow/fast lane where the division of slow/fast is having SOME high bandwidth stuff in the fast lane, and SOME high bandwidth stuff in the slow lane wherein the choice of which goes where is arbitrary and dependent upon paying what is essentially a bribe.
It's like health insurance: Buy a middleman you don't need or want.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2014, 03:06 PM   #13
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 37,267
Default

They are worried about big companies paying the ISP's a premium to slow down competitors packets on the internet.

The ISP say we need flexibility because some packets are more important based on type of data. Some seem to say treat every packet first come first serve.

Then I guess last issue, which doesn't seem to have anything to do with neutrality is how rural areas will get access, who pays for it if it's more expensive to provide the infrastructure to those places etc etc.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2014, 03:19 PM   #14
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 4,429

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
I watched a bit, of particular interest was his interpretation of fast/slow lane metaphor. He seems to think there is a big issue with creating a fast/slow lane to divide low bandwidth things like web, email, etc. from high bandwidth things like streaming video.

That is not the issue. The issue is creating a slow/fast lane where the division of slow/fast is having SOME high bandwidth stuff in the fast lane, and SOME high bandwidth stuff in the slow lane wherein the choice of which goes where is arbitrary and dependent upon paying what is essentially a bribe.
So would asking a media provider to provide local caching on your network (if they want routing parity) constitute a 'bribe?'
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2014, 04:17 PM   #15
baja
Headmaster
 
baja's Avatar
 
The Fixer

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 61,390

Adopt-a-Bronco:
C J Anderson
Default

I get 20 Mbps download speed which is awesome
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2014, 04:46 PM   #16
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,123

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
So would asking a media provider to provide local caching on your network (if they want routing parity) constitute a 'bribe?'
Depends on the scenario. If the request is made because it's an effective way to solve a real problem rather than a way to extort money from the provider, it's certainly not a "bribe".

Netflix actually makes this request of ISPs, which is probably what you are thinking of. The ISP provides free rack space, and their congestion (and peering costs) are reduced. A notable exception is Comcast, which refuses such an arrangement despite it being a win-win-win solution (a win for comcast, a win for netflix and a win for comcast subscribers wanting to view netflix). Instead, they force netflix into paying money which somehow magically fixes the "congestion" overnight.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:31 AM.


Denver Broncos