Even Cracked realizes this: http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-reasons-internet-access-in-america-disaster That can't be good. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
On Jun 9, 2011, at 8:43 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Even Cracked realizes this:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-reasons-internet-access-in-america-disaster
I would describe this as "local market failure". It's common even in highly populated areas, not just rural ones here in the US. What I have observed is the roll-out of the AT&T U-verse service (aka internet-lite as it is not possible to disable some of their ALG on the gateway) skip areas along the way to hit higher density neighborhoods. They are getting better with their pair bonding, but many people are unable to get access at the edges of these populated areas. - Jared (who would have rather seen google roll into an entire county that faces these challenges vs major cities)
Once upon a time, Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> said:
On Jun 9, 2011, at 8:43 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Even Cracked realizes this:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-reasons-internet-access-in-america-disaster
I would describe this as "local market failure". It's common even in highly populated areas, not just rural ones here in the US.
I'd go so far as to say "user failure". If I wanted cable TV (especially if I needed it at home as part of my job), I wouldn't buy/rent/lease/whatever a home without checking that cable TV is available at that location. I live in a city with two cable providers, each of which covers the "whole" city, yet there are pockets where one (or even both) don't provide service. Before I bought my house, I made sure I could get my preferred Internet service at my house. There are definately things wrong with the state of last-mile Internet access in the US, but moving somewhere without checking is IMHO your own fault. -- Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net> Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
I think the point is the ubiquity of access isn't what it should be. On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net> wrote:
Once upon a time, Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> said:
On Jun 9, 2011, at 8:43 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Even Cracked realizes this:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-reasons-internet-access-in-america-disaster
I would describe this as "local market failure". It's common even in highly populated areas, not just rural ones here in the US.
I'd go so far as to say "user failure". If I wanted cable TV (especially if I needed it at home as part of my job), I wouldn't buy/rent/lease/whatever a home without checking that cable TV is available at that location. I live in a city with two cable providers, each of which covers the "whole" city, yet there are pockets where one (or even both) don't provide service.
Before I bought my house, I made sure I could get my preferred Internet service at my house.
There are definately things wrong with the state of last-mile Internet access in the US, but moving somewhere without checking is IMHO your own fault.
-- Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net> Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
-- Kyle Creyts Information Assurance Professional
The umbra of it all. We have jobs though. ~Jay "We move the information that moves your world." “Engineering is about finding the sweet spot between what's solvable and what isn't." “Good engineering demands that we understand what we’re doing and why, keep an open mind, and learn from experience.” Radia Perlman "If human beings are perceived as potentials rather than problems, as possessing strengths instead of weaknesses, as unlimited rather than dull and unresponsive, then they thrive and grow to their capabilities." Please consider the environment before printing e-mail -----Original Message----- From: Kyle Creyts [mailto:kyle.creyts@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 8:01 AM To: Chris Adams; NANOG Subject: Re: Yup; the Internet is screwed up. I think the point is the ubiquity of access isn't what it should be. On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net> wrote:
Once upon a time, Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> said:
On Jun 9, 2011, at 8:43 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Even Cracked realizes this:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-reasons-internet-access-in-america-disaster
I would describe this as "local market failure". It's common even in highly populated areas, not just rural ones here in the US.
I'd go so far as to say "user failure". If I wanted cable TV (especially if I needed it at home as part of my job), I wouldn't buy/rent/lease/whatever a home without checking that cable TV is available at that location. I live in a city with two cable providers, each of which covers the "whole" city, yet there are pockets where one (or even both) don't provide service.
Before I bought my house, I made sure I could get my preferred Internet service at my house.
There are definately things wrong with the state of last-mile Internet access in the US, but moving somewhere without checking is IMHO your own fault.
-- Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net> Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
-- Kyle Creyts Information Assurance Professional
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay Murphy, DOH" <Jay.Murphy@state.nm.us>
The umbra of it all. We have jobs though.
Not all of us. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
On Jun 10, 2011, at 10:01 AM, Kyle Creyts wrote:
I think the point is the ubiquity of access isn't what it should be.
I think there were several good points made in the article. 1) Data caps and how they impact software updates (or downloads) - hughesnet was mentioned but .. Looking to the near future, Apple is selling a 4GB download for $30 in the next month or so. That will have a large impact on networks that day IMHO. If you have a 3G/4G/LTE/whatnot device it makes it impossible to pull down the image without hitting your 5GB or 10GB cap compared to a fixed access network. Even assuming you go to the local Panera/McDonalds/Starbucks/Library access, if you get 2MB/s (16Mb/s) you're talking about 20-25 minutes. Those locales don't usually have that fast of a network though. 2) Last mile is expensive to install and hard to justify for people. This is because of a long history of universal service and subsidization/regulation. In Michigan you could get a phone line installed for $42 (not sure, haven't installed POTS in a long time, may have gone up) regardless of the cost to the carrier. This isn't the case when you want to extend other utilities (eg Gas, electric, water...). People are willing to pay 10k+ to install these services as part of their construction expense. Their other utility cost is masked in part due to the past 100+ years of telecom history. The cost of lighting a 20km strand of fiber at 1Gb/s is somewhere in the $600, including ONT, etc. Many people here on nanog would happily pay that amount. Now, the 12-100k per mile to build the fiber is the hard part to eat. 3) Certainly he did a poor job of site selection. Perhaps he was misled or even lied to. I've faced similar challenges when working with both hardware vendors and carriers out there. The sales peoples eyes get big once you start talking about "doing" something, but the engineers at the table generally start asking serious questions. (I certainly will not move anywhere that doesn't have a HFC or PON/FTTH network. Sorry AT&T/Centurylink/others but the plusses don't justify the minuses). - It's certainly possible that we will see improved last-mile access. The USDA/RUS and DOC/NTIA efforts are to be applauded. If you look at the current AT&T + T-Mobile merger people are talking about it will bring broadband to 97% of the country, and help AT&T (mobility division) with last-mile/local tower regulatory hurdles. They are not talking about how it will remove the need for data caps that are 1/30th the size of their 150GB cap on their mobile side elements. I suspect there's a lot that could be improved by each market player here, but as happened with Verizon in the Northeast, I expect the less-dense markets will need to have better local service from regional players vs the "big guys". Overall this will be good, but the costs will also have to be paid for more with the local subscriber. - Jared
2) Last mile is expensive to install and hard to justify for people. This is because of a long history of universal service and subsidization/regulation.
Not only that, it makes it even worse when you hear firsthand accounts of "yea, this customer's DSL is screwed because at&t was too cheap to install proper guage wires like they did down the street in the same neighborhood!!" from an actual at&t digital technician. And yes, this was in the middle of a US city with almost 500k population. So much for "rethink possible", I guess we'll just have to live with "reach out and touch someone"...... -- m On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> wrote:
On Jun 10, 2011, at 10:01 AM, Kyle Creyts wrote:
I think the point is the ubiquity of access isn't what it should be.
I think there were several good points made in the article.
1) Data caps and how they impact software updates (or downloads) - hughesnet was mentioned but ..
Looking to the near future, Apple is selling a 4GB download for $30 in the next month or so. That will have a large impact on networks that day IMHO. If you have a 3G/4G/LTE/whatnot device it makes it impossible to pull down the image without hitting your 5GB or 10GB cap compared to a fixed access network.
Even assuming you go to the local Panera/McDonalds/Starbucks/Library access, if you get 2MB/s (16Mb/s) you're talking about 20-25 minutes. Those locales don't usually have that fast of a network though.
2) Last mile is expensive to install and hard to justify for people. This is because of a long history of universal service and subsidization/regulation.
In Michigan you could get a phone line installed for $42 (not sure, haven't installed POTS in a long time, may have gone up) regardless of the cost to the carrier. This isn't the case when you want to extend other utilities (eg Gas, electric, water...). People are willing to pay 10k+ to install these services as part of their construction expense. Their other utility cost is masked in part due to the past 100+ years of telecom history. The cost of lighting a 20km strand of fiber at 1Gb/s is somewhere in the $600, including ONT, etc. Many people here on nanog would happily pay that amount. Now, the 12-100k per mile to build the fiber is the hard part to eat.
3) Certainly he did a poor job of site selection. Perhaps he was misled or even lied to. I've faced similar challenges when working with both hardware vendors and carriers out there. The sales peoples eyes get big once you start talking about "doing" something, but the engineers at the table generally start asking serious questions. (I certainly will not move anywhere that doesn't have a HFC or PON/FTTH network. Sorry AT&T/Centurylink/others but the plusses don't justify the minuses).
-
It's certainly possible that we will see improved last-mile access. The USDA/RUS and DOC/NTIA efforts are to be applauded. If you look at the current AT&T + T-Mobile merger people are talking about it will bring broadband to 97% of the country, and help AT&T (mobility division) with last-mile/local tower regulatory hurdles. They are not talking about how it will remove the need for data caps that are 1/30th the size of their 150GB cap on their mobile side elements.
I suspect there's a lot that could be improved by each market player here, but as happened with Verizon in the Northeast, I expect the less-dense markets will need to have better local service from regional players vs the "big guys". Overall this will be good, but the costs will also have to be paid for more with the local subscriber.
- Jared
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jared Mauch" <jared@puck.nether.net>
On Jun 10, 2011, at 10:01 AM, Kyle Creyts wrote:
I think the point is the ubiquity of access isn't what it should be.
I think there were several good points made in the article.
1) Data caps and how they impact software updates (or downloads) - hughesnet was mentioned but ..
Looking to the near future, Apple is selling a 4GB download for $30 in the next month or so. That will have a large impact on networks that day IMHO. If you have a 3G/4G/LTE/whatnot device it makes it impossible to pull down the image without hitting your 5GB or 10GB cap compared to a fixed access network.
Even assuming you go to the local Panera/McDonalds/Starbucks/Library access, if you get 2MB/s (16Mb/s) you're talking about 20-25 minutes. Those locales don't usually have that fast of a network though.
Much more to the point: the (vendors hope for the) coming preponderance of services like iCloud mean that you'll be able to *pay someone* to force you to use up your capped service, downloading music *you already paid for in the first place*. People Are Stupid. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 09:47, Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net> wrote:
I'd go so far as to say "user failure". If I wanted cable TV (especially if I needed it at home as part of my job), I wouldn't buy/rent/lease/whatever a home without checking that cable TV is available at that location.
Yeah, he messed up, but the social problem is still real. The Internet is now more important than electricity or water -- you can go off the grid or dig your own well, but more and more you can't get a job or talk to the government without web access and email.
On Jun 10, 2011, at 10:04 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 09:47, Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net> wrote:
I'd go so far as to say "user failure". If I wanted cable TV (especially if I needed it at home as part of my job), I wouldn't buy/rent/lease/whatever a home without checking that cable TV is available at that location.
Yeah, he messed up, but the social problem is still real. The Internet is now more important than electricity or water -- you can go off the grid or dig your own well, but more and more you can't get a job or talk to the government without web access and email.
I have an off-the-grid location I can go to. I can get internet access there with a VZ MIFI at speeds of 1Mb/s. What I can't get is a software update over that service to keep my devices secure. The 5GB data cap gets in the way. The current set of iphone/ipad firmware updates are about 700mb per device. Not counting the latest combo updater (or incremental) for MacOS. (Hopefully with the 5.0 software announced they will do OTA updates on a different APN that doesn't count against ones data limits). I don't use windows so not sure what those weigh in at, but they're bound to be a few hundred megs. - Jared
Funny, how in the title refers to the Internet globally when the article is specific about the USA. I live in europe and we have at home 100Mbps . Mid sized city of 500k people. Some ISPs even spread WiFi across town so that subscribers can have internet access outside their homes. On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> wrote:
On Jun 10, 2011, at 10:04 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 09:47, Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net> wrote:
I'd go so far as to say "user failure". If I wanted cable TV (especially if I needed it at home as part of my job), I wouldn't buy/rent/lease/whatever a home without checking that cable TV is available at that location.
Yeah, he messed up, but the social problem is still real. The Internet is now more important than electricity or water -- you can go off the grid or dig your own well, but more and more you can't get a job or talk to the government without web access and email.
I have an off-the-grid location I can go to. I can get internet access there with a VZ MIFI at speeds of 1Mb/s. What I can't get is a software update over that service to keep my devices secure. The 5GB data cap gets in the way.
The current set of iphone/ipad firmware updates are about 700mb per device. Not counting the latest combo updater (or incremental) for MacOS. (Hopefully with the 5.0 software announced they will do OTA updates on a different APN that doesn't count against ones data limits).
I don't use windows so not sure what those weigh in at, but they're bound to be a few hundred megs.
- Jared
-- Ricardo Ferreira
Ricardo Ferreira wrote:
Funny, how in the title refers to the Internet globally when the article is specific about the USA.
I live in europe and we have at home 100Mbps . Mid sized city of 500k people. Some ISPs even spread WiFi across town so that subscribers can have internet access outside their homes.
Though it's nice to have why would one *need* 100 Mbps at home? I understand the necessity of internet access and agree everyone has a right to it. But that necessity can be perfectly fulfilled with a stable internet connection of a reasonable speed (say low to mid range DSL speed tops). I don't regard simultaneously streaming 6 channels of TV and downloading the latest movie torrent in 2 minutes as a basic necessity, let alone essential. Regards, Jeroen -- http://goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/ http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/plural-of-virus.html
Randy Bush wrote:
some of us try to get work done from home. and anyone who has worked and/or lived in a first world country thinks american 'broadband' speeds are a joke, even for a home network.
I understand, but I was referring to the average home internet connection. But even for work 100Mbps seems a bit overkill for most purposes. Whole offices work fine with a "mere" bonded T1 at 10Mbps. Admitted it's symmetrical and is more stable. But regarding speed it's quite a bit slower than the mentioned 100Mbps home internet. Regards, Jeroen -- http://goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/ http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/plural-of-virus.html
Sent from my iPad On Jun 11, 2011, at 15:16, Jeroen van Aart <jeroen@mompl.net> wrote:
Randy Bush wrote:
some of us try to get work done from home. and anyone who has worked and/or lived in a first world country thinks american 'broadband' speeds are a joke, even for a home network.
I understand, but I was referring to the average home internet connection. But even for work 100Mbps seems a bit overkill for most purposes. Whole offices work fine with a "mere" bonded T1 at 10Mbps. Admitted it's symmetrical and is more stable. But regarding speed it's quite a bit slower than the mentioned 100Mbps home internet.
Depends on the office and the user profile at home. I would be very unhappy and so would my coworkers behind a bonded T1 at 10 Mbps. However, I do admit I think my 70 Mbps at home will probably be adequate for a few years to come. Owen
On 12/06/2011 1:02 p.m., Owen DeLong wrote:
On Jun 11, 2011, at 15:16, Jeroen van Aart<jeroen@mompl.net> wrote: Randy Bush wrote: some of us try to get work done from home. and anyone who has worked and/or lived in a first world country thinks american 'broadband' speeds are a joke, even for a home network.
I understand, but I was referring to the average home internet connection. But even for work 100Mbps seems a bit overkill for most purposes. Whole offices work fine with a "mere" bonded T1 at 10Mbps. Admitted it's symmetrical and is more stable. But regarding speed it's quite a bit slower than the mentioned 100Mbps home internet.
Depends on the office and the user profile at home. I would be very unhappy and so would my coworkers behind a bonded T1 at 10 Mbps. However, I do admit I think my 70 Mbps at home will probably be adequate for a few years to come.
Some may find this of interest: http://home.bowenvale.co.nz/wp/apps.gif and this... http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1515155 (Is there an NBN Killer App? - Australians talking about what they might use the FTTH for). With respect to home v's office, 100 v's 10... Applications such as back up may not even be attempted online in an office, which is why 10mbit is fine. As I said earlier, BIR is what 100mbit is about. In an office you have computers on for 8 hours a day. With QoS you can push data out in a controlled way. For example, when you send a 10mb email, it transfers to the office mail server 'instantly' and is then streamed out at what ever speed the QoS is letting port 25 run at. At home when you send 10mb it goes direct to the ISPs SMTP server and saturates the uplink while that's happening or QoS slows it down and the customer has to wait while their computer 'sends' the message. BIR is also about user experience. We know that when we give users a better experience they stay longer. See: http://home.bowenvale.co.nz/wp/sam where Sam Morgan talks about making sure that TradeMe.co.nz is fast so that users will stick about and use it more. At work you have limited choice. If it's slow, but you have to use it, then you will. Where as at home if it's slow, you'll give up and go read a book. Also at home we're more likely to make massive volumes of content, for example a simple photo shoot with your kid on your new digital camera can chew up 1gb in minutes (my 10mpx camera uses 1gb --> 220 shots which I can shoot off at a birthday party without even trying). How often do businesses produce that volume of content?
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 01:16, Jeroen van Aart <jeroen@mompl.net> wrote:
Randy Bush wrote:
some of us try to get work done from home. and anyone who has worked and/or lived in a first world country thinks american 'broadband' speeds are a joke, even for a home network.
I understand, but I was referring to the average home internet connection. But even for work 100Mbps seems a bit overkill for most purposes. Whole offices work fine with a "mere" bonded T1 at 10Mbps. Admitted it's symmetrical and is more stable. But regarding speed it's quite a bit slower than the mentioned 100Mbps home internet.
I need 100Mbs at home because I want to see a streamed movie NOW, not in a month because someone considers broadband a luxury :) Pretty simple usage scenario I might say.
Once upon a time, Eugeniu Patrascu <eugen@imacandi.net> said:
I need 100Mbs at home because I want to see a streamed movie NOW, not in a month because someone considers broadband a luxury :) Pretty simple usage scenario I might say.
The top profile for Blu-Ray is 36 megabits per second, and that is not used on most titles. Over-the-air HDTV is 19 megabits or less. Cable HD channels are often only 12-15 megabits per second. OTA and cable HD is typically MPEG2, and MPEG4 can reach similar quality in half the bandwidth, which means TV quality HD can be 6-10 megabits per second. -- Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net> Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Adams" <cmadams@hiwaay.net>
The top profile for Blu-Ray is 36 megabits per second, and that is not used on most titles. Over-the-air HDTV is 19 megabits or less. Cable HD channels are often only 12-15 megabits per second.
Chris glances off, but doesn't quite say, that cable providers are prone to *reencode* OTA HDTV, leaving cable subscribers with a worse -- sometimes a *substantially* worse -- picture than they'd get from an OTA antenna. Bandwidth surfing is rarely so end-user visible. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
Once upon a time, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> said:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Adams" <cmadams@hiwaay.net> The top profile for Blu-Ray is 36 megabits per second, and that is not used on most titles. Over-the-air HDTV is 19 megabits or less. Cable HD channels are often only 12-15 megabits per second.
Chris glances off, but doesn't quite say, that cable providers are prone to *reencode* OTA HDTV, leaving cable subscribers with a worse -- sometimes a *substantially* worse -- picture than they'd get from an OTA antenna.
Well, the OTA providers are doing it to the network feeds first, so I don't see focusing on the cable providers doing it to the OTA providers as the sole source of quality issues. The OTA providers also reencode to add bugs, weather/breaking news crawls, etc., and they don't always do a good job of that before feeding the signal to the statmuxer. -- Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net> Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Adams" <cmadams@hiwaay.net>
Well, the OTA providers are doing it to the network feeds first, so I don't see focusing on the cable providers doing it to the OTA providers as the sole source of quality issues. The OTA providers also reencode to add bugs, weather/breaking news crawls, etc., and they don't always do a good job of that before feeding the signal to the statmuxer.
TTBOMK, no, the affils don't actually reencode the whole feed; there are boxes these days that can insert your bug without trashing the rest of the stream -- and I think their contract with the network *requires* them to run their primary streams as-had, though I can't produce a citation on that. Do you have a citation on this, Chris? I have a couple MythTV people on that list who work at network affils that I could ask. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
Once upon a time, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> said:
TTBOMK, no, the affils don't actually reencode the whole feed; there are boxes these days that can insert your bug without trashing the rest of the stream -- and I think their contract with the network *requires* them to run their primary streams as-had, though I can't produce a citation on that.
Do you have a citation on this, Chris? I have a couple MythTV people on that list who work at network affils that I could ask.
Well, many/most have multiple channels in their digital stream, and they have to reencode to lower bitrates to fit them all in (different stations do better or worse jobs at this). Only one signal here just carries one channel. -- Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net> Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 22:48, Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net> wrote:
Once upon a time, Eugeniu Patrascu <eugen@imacandi.net> said:
I need 100Mbs at home because I want to see a streamed movie NOW, not in a month because someone considers broadband a luxury :) Pretty simple usage scenario I might say.
The top profile for Blu-Ray is 36 megabits per second, and that is not used on most titles. Over-the-air HDTV is 19 megabits or less. Cable HD channels are often only 12-15 megabits per second. OTA and cable HD is typically MPEG2, and MPEG4 can reach similar quality in half the bandwidth, which means TV quality HD can be 6-10 megabits per second.
Even though, my point stands. I don't want to wait forever for stuff to load just because a dialup should be enough for browsing :)
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 02:34:10AM -0700, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
Ricardo Ferreira wrote:
Funny, how in the title refers to the Internet globally when the article is specific about the USA.
I live in europe and we have at home 100Mbps . Mid sized city of 500k people. Some ISPs even spread WiFi across town so that subscribers can have internet access outside their homes.
Though it's nice to have why would one *need* 100 Mbps at home? I understand the necessity of internet access and agree everyone has a right to it. But that necessity can be perfectly fulfilled with a stable internet connection of a reasonable speed (say low to mid range DSL speed tops).
I don't regard simultaneously streaming 6 channels of TV and downloading the latest movie torrent in 2 minutes as a basic necessity, let alone essential.
Well, you probably live in a premises with only a couple of people. A household with the "standard" 2.3 kids might need to stream 4.3 TV channels, and it'd be nice if that didn't have an adverse impact on other traffic (an incoming SIP call or two, and useful work). - Matt
Matthew Palmer wrote:
Well, you probably live in a premises with only a couple of people. A household with the "standard" 2.3 kids might need to stream 4.3 TV channels,
Right, but now you're talking about the luxury aspect of it. And then all bets are off. The necessity would already be fulfilled with a lower speed. -- http://goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/ http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/plural-of-virus.html
100mbit is not luxury, it's something my business needs all it's customers to have to drive more uptake of my services. My customers already have 10/1 today. Now I need them to have 100/40 so they have a reason to buy other CPE that in turn drives my business. See: http://home.bowenvale.co.nz/wp/apps.gif On 01/1 we can't even use half those apps. Which means there is no market for any of the CPE that those apps require. That CPE is a massive global economic driver. With out the ability to use the CPE there is no driver for further development of that CPE. The basic POTS telephone has stayed the same for 3 decades. There is just about no work for anyone designing POTS CPE, there was work 3 decades ago. 4 Decades ago parents around the globe were told that IT and computers where the future. We have to keep growing our data delivery systems in order to keep pushing IT forward. Is a job in IT a luxury? On 12/06/2011 10:20 a.m., Jeroen van Aart wrote:
Matthew Palmer wrote:
Well, you probably live in a premises with only a couple of people. A household with the "standard" 2.3 kids might need to stream 4.3 TV channels,
Right, but now you're talking about the luxury aspect of it. And then all bets are off. The necessity would already be fulfilled with a lower speed.
On 6/12/11 2:22 AM, Don Gould wrote:
100mbit is not luxury, it's something my business needs all it's customers to have to drive more uptake of my services.
My customers already have 10/1 today. Now I need them to have 100/40 so they have a reason to buy other CPE that in turn drives my business.
I have to ask, why not just give them symmetric speeds? I understand there are technical reasons why on DSL and cable you end up with asymmetric, but those don't apply to Ethernet delivery. ~Seth
* 2.5GPON isn't symmetric. * DSL and cable can be symmetric. * Business reasons - providers don't want you hosting content at home, they want you hosting content in their data centers so they can charge for that space. So when a provider gets a 100/100 from a telco, it uses 90/10 dl to feed it's tails and 10/90 to push content back to the net of its server array. D On 14/06/2011 4:54 a.m., Seth Mattinen wrote:
On 6/12/11 2:22 AM, Don Gould wrote:
100mbit is not luxury, it's something my business needs all it's customers to have to drive more uptake of my services.
My customers already have 10/1 today. Now I need them to have 100/40 so they have a reason to buy other CPE that in turn drives my business.
I have to ask, why not just give them symmetric speeds? I understand there are technical reasons why on DSL and cable you end up with asymmetric, but those don't apply to Ethernet delivery.
~Seth
-- Don Gould 31 Acheson Ave Mairehau Christchurch, New Zealand Ph: + 64 3 348 7235 Mobile: + 64 21 114 0699
On 11/06/2011 9:34 p.m., Jeroen van Aart wrote:
I don't regard simultaneously streaming 6 channels of TV and downloading the latest movie torrent in 2 minutes as a basic necessity, let alone essential.
100/40 isn't about 6 channels of TV and even less about torrents. It's about BIR not CIR. It's about dropping my HD video recorder, with 2 hours of random video recorded at todays 'family birthday party', on its 'hot shoe' and it just dumps 40gb to my back up server in the 10 minutes it takes me make a cup of coffee and check my blog. 10 minutes later I expect the transfer to be done, and I'll then put the camera (which was also charged in that time) back in the bag and away in the draw. Because I'm using CrashPlan, my back up server is actually some free space on my PC at work and also my mum's computer at her home (in another city) - not a cloud provider because I can't (choose not to) trust. (note I'm sending the back up to 2 sites at the same time) I don't want that transfer to saturate my link, but at the same time my wife is grabing a copy of the video her sister made of the same event and her brother is dropping a copy of his video on my computer (also as a CrashPlan[1] back up) from his house. My son has just flicked on his TV, has chosen a movie from iTunes and is downloading it flat out to his AppleTV[2] STB. The phone goes, it's my Dad just catching up... well actually he's Skypeing[3] me and wants a bit of help with a web site he's working on so orders up remote desktop (which uses ~4mbit if the capacity is there). Mean time my wife has flicked on our TV and chosen a film that we want to watch and that's also streaming in to our AppleTV STB. For about 30 minutes we'll be maxing out our 100/40, but I fully agree with any suggestion that with a bit of planning we really don't need more than 5mbits... But if you want to talk about planning... When my mother was a kid, my grandmother would get meat at the butcher each day. When I was a kid my mother would get meat out of the freezer in the morning. I grab what I need 10 minutes before I use it and put it in the microwave to defrost. Do we need this technology? The microwave gave me my first job in sales but today you just buy them at the supermarket. 100/40 will drive homes to use more of their spare hard disk space using crash plan or some other software that does the same thing. It will drive people to buy, use and back up their HD cameras. It will drive people buy STB's like AppleTV etc in numbers. Not just one in the family room. All these new gadgets will drive the need for much more home networking technology. It's why we need more 1's and 0's to move. D [1][2][3] - I don't represent any of these companies, but I have been looking at these products specifically with UFB in mind because they are popular/functional and slurp 1's and 0's like a V12 and gas.
Don Gould wrote:
100/40 isn't about 6 channels of TV and even less about torrents.
It's about BIR not CIR.
It's about dropping my HD video recorder, with 2 hours of random video recorded at todays 'family birthday party', on its 'hot shoe' and it
All these new gadgets will drive the need for much more home networking technology.
It's why we need more 1's and 0's to move.
But this is all luxury, it's not the fulfillment of a basic need and even a right (as proclaimed by the UN). It's going above and beyond that, which is fine, but it's not *needed* in the sense of survival and being able to further yourself in life and career. Just as a toyota corolla perfectly fulfills the need to drive your toddlers around and drive to and from work. An SUV in almost all cases is added luxury. Greetings, Jeroen -- http://goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/ http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/plural-of-virus.html
But this is all luxury, it's not the fulfillment of a basic need and even a right (as proclaimed by the UN). It's going above and beyond that, which is fine, but it's not *needed* in the sense of survival and being able to further yourself in life and career.
A smartphone may be a luxury. I strongly suspect, for example, that for the 14-year-old kid wandering around with an iPhone that the use is one of luxury; I, on the other hand, finally felt forced into one because I had a compelling (even if only occasional) business need to do things like ssh without lugging a laptop and wireless card with me at all times. Is that an accurate way to look at it? Maybe. However, if I were a parent, maybe I would have an additional perspective: perhaps I like the idea that I can run "Find my iPhone" and be likely to be able to track my kid, because I know damn well that the social status bump of having the phone means it's going to be with him/her. Or maybe one day my kid is snatched. The ability to call 911, the ability to track, the ability to record, the ability to take pictures, even the ability to use the camera as a flashlight, etc., who knows what might be useful. So while the phone might be a luxury on one hand, there's also a real big potential for it to be a serious tool, even a lifesaving one, in a crisis. What about http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/06/if-you-pull-out-your.ars for example? With police frequently snatching and confiscating, or even smashing, recording devices, might we consider a high speed communications channel as an essential way to record evidence away from the scene of an event in realtime? It doesn't have to be a cellphone. How about a home security system's external cameras? We continue to evolve new uses and technologies that make the capabilities that we have more useful. Luxuries? Sure, many are nice to have as well, but just because something might frequently be used for unnecessary purposes does not reduce the importance of other uses.
Just as a toyota corolla perfectly fulfills the need to drive your toddlers around and drive to and from work. An SUV in almost all cases is added luxury.
My SUV carries seven passengers and allows me to haul gear including conduit, lumber, ladders, etc. It's actively dangerous to do some of these things in a sedan. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
Joe Greco wrote:
toddlers around and drive to and from work. An SUV in almost all cases is added luxury.
My SUV carries seven passengers and allows me to haul gear including conduit, lumber, ladders, etc. It's actively dangerous to do some of these things in a sedan.
Hence I said "in almost all cases". Although I admit the car analogy is pretty much flawed by its very nature, and over used. I shouldn't have done it. Greetings, Jeroen -- Earthquake Magnitude: 1.8 Date: Thursday, June 23, 2011 20:16:35 UTC Location: Southern Alaska Latitude: 60.0763; Longitude: -141.1119 Depth: 0.30 km
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 14:03:00 -0700 To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Yup; the Internet is screwed up.
[[ attibutions lost ]]
toddlers around and drive to and from work. An SUV in almost all cases is added luxury.
My SUV carries seven passengers and allows me to haul gear including conduit, lumber, ladders, etc. It's actively dangerous to do some of these things in a sedan.
I'll just point out that that "depends on the sedan". I had a sedan[1] where I could carry three full sections of commercial scaffolding _inside_ the car. Six 5'x5' uprights, six 2'x10' platform sections, and all the cross-braces. 10' sections of conduit, or plumbing pipe were a 'nothing'. I could put half-sheets (4'x4') of plywood _flat_ on the floor of the trunk, and close the trunk lid. I had about 1500 lbs of actual cargo capacity, but I "wasn't legal" with over about half-a-ton on board. -- [1] A Cadillac Fleetwood on the 'long commercial' chassis, with a crica 8L engine, it routinely delivered 27+ mpg on the highway, with the A/C on, when lightly loaded.
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 02:34:10AM -0700, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
Though it's nice to have why would one *need* 100 Mbps at home? I
Residential broadband is asymmetric, so it's typically more like 6/100 MBit/s, though VDSL and FTTH are also making (slow) progress. Even with that slow upstream telecommuting suddenly becomes useful. There are virtual environments like OpenQwaq which will needly plenty of uncongested/good QoS upstream for video and audio to work. There are plenty of P2P protocols (Skype, Tor, I2P, Bitcoin, distributed searches like YaCy, etc.) which absolutely require bandwidth, especially if you run several of them at the same time. You will increasingly see anonymizing traffic picking up as geolocation and censorship increase.
understand the necessity of internet access and agree everyone has a right to it. But that necessity can be perfectly fulfilled with a stable
It definitely reduces need for moving human bodies in metal boxes back and forth, and reduces road wear and carbon dioxide emissions.
internet connection of a reasonable speed (say low to mid range DSL speed tops).
I don't regard simultaneously streaming 6 channels of TV and downloading
Cable providers have an incentive to move to streaming video, as it saves bandwidth.
the latest movie torrent in 2 minutes as a basic necessity, let alone essential.
I can think of many constructive uses for symmetric 100 MBit/s and higher residential. Of course you won't see the demand until you offer uncrippled upstream.
Eugen Leitl wrote:
It definitely reduces need for moving human bodies in metal boxes back and forth, and reduces road wear and carbon dioxide emissions.
I think a world of telecommuting employees is a utopia that will not be reached in my lifetime. Most companies have proven to be unwilling to make it a reality, exceptions just confirm the rule. Fiber to the premises or whatever broadband solution one may implement will not change that much. Until the human factor changes... -- http://goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/ http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/plural-of-virus.html
On Jun 11, 2011, at 6:37 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
Eugen Leitl wrote:
It definitely reduces need for moving human bodies in metal boxes back and forth, and reduces road wear and carbon dioxide emissions.
I think a world of telecommuting employees is a utopia that will not be reached in my lifetime. Most companies have proven to be unwilling to make it a reality, exceptions just confirm the rule. Fiber to the premises or whatever broadband solution one may implement will not change that much.
Until the human factor changes...
I'm not sure where this thread is going but rural america and rural canada are rolling their own broadband connectivity in places. I just helped a friend in NW Ont (in the bush) to mesh all his neighbors (the term neighbors is a stretch due to distance) together with the wireless mesh connected all the way back to where a cabin had LOS view to a canopy POP. I know of similar grass roots wireless mesh system in the farmlands of mid america. Its very big in the Caribbean also. As there become more folks around to help and kids learn networking so that they can help deploy in their communities, I expect that this will occur more and more unless carriers fill the void which I doubt. If major carriers want eyeballs then they are missing out rolling out cheap wireless mesh systems. Their problem I guess is lack of huge return and even more lack of physical control over the mesh nodes. Tom
On Jun 11, 2011, at 19:00, TR Shaw <tshaw@oitc.com> wrote:
I'm not sure where this thread is going but rural america and rural canada are rolling their own broadband connectivity in places.
This is my eventual goal where I'm moving. (Oswego Co., NY). I'm well aware that I'm moving outside of "broadband-land", and while I'm not happy about this, the pros of moving there outweighed this con. Options seem to be limited to HughesNet and dial for the moment, but things may change if I put a tower on the property. HughesNet seems to relax it's bandwidth cap between 2am and 7am, which is helpful, but still a great shift from what I'm used to at the current residence (15/2). It would be great to get neighbors in on some sort of community solution, but it will take some time to feel out where they are on this.
On 6/11/2011 4:29 PM, Christopher Pilkington wrote:
On Jun 11, 2011, at 19:00, TR Shaw<tshaw@oitc.com> wrote:
I'm not sure where this thread is going but rural america and rural canada are rolling their own broadband connectivity in places. This is my eventual goal where I'm moving. (Oswego Co., NY).
I'm well aware that I'm moving outside of "broadband-land", and while I'm not happy about this, the pros of moving there outweighed this con.
Options seem to be limited to HughesNet and dial for the moment, but things may change if I put a tower on the property. HughesNet seems to relax it's bandwidth cap between 2am and 7am, which is helpful, but still a great shift from what I'm used to at the current residence (15/2).
No 3G cellphone service?
It would be great to get neighbors in on some sort of community solution, but it will take some time to feel out where they are on this.
On Jun 11, 2011, at 7:07 PM, Roy wrote:
On 6/11/2011 4:29 PM, Christopher Pilkington wrote:
Options seem to be limited to HughesNet and dial for the moment, but things may change if I put a tower on the property. HughesNet seems to relax it's bandwidth cap between 2am and 7am, which is helpful, but still a great shift from what I'm used to at the current residence (15/2).
No 3G cellphone service?
3G at this location is marginal at best (stand on a hill and hold the phone up above your head.) That said, are there 3G radios that permit external antennas or are well suited to being sealed up in a weatherproof box and being placed on a pole/tower? 3G would get us around the 200-300MiB/day issue, but I'm fairly certain I'll be dealing with similar monthly caps. I can really hope for a wISP nearby, but so far my research hasn't turned up anything. Is there some wISP marketplace/directory about? The final option would be to unofficially put hardware on the roof of my office 50km away with some high-gain antennas, but the path is marginally LOS, I think I might need a very large tower at either end. -cjp
On Jun 11, 2011, at 7:07 PM, Roy wrote:
On 6/11/2011 4:29 PM, Christopher Pilkington wrote:
Options seem to be limited to HughesNet and dial for the moment, but things may change if I put a tower on the property. HughesNet seems to relax it's bandwidth cap between 2am and 7am, which is helpful, but still a great shift from what I'm used to at the current residence (15/2).
No 3G cellphone service? 3G at this location is marginal at best (stand on a hill and hold the phone up above your head.)
That said, are there 3G radios that permit external antennas or are well suited to being sealed up in a weatherproof box and being placed on a pole/tower?
3G would get us around the 200-300MiB/day issue, but I'm fairly certain I'll be dealing with similar monthly caps. I can really hope for a wISP nearby, but so far my research hasn't turned up anything. Is there some wISP marketplace/directory about?
The final option would be to unofficially put hardware on the roof of my office 50km away with some high-gain antennas, but the path is marginally LOS, I think I might need a very large tower at either end.
-cjp www.wispa.org is probably the largest organization. Every state in
On 6/12/11 1:04 PM, Christopher J. Pilkington wrote: the US has a broadband mapping project that should be able to tell you who is in the area and what options you have (assuming that you are in the US which might not be true). If there are no other providers around (or they don't do a good job) it's not that hard to build your own. It doesn't take a very large population density to make a viable business. Just don't try to build a wISP with 802.11x equipment. A properly built wISP network competes quite well with HFC networks in speed and reliability. The technology is evolving quickly with capacity and reliability making significant gains. -- Mark Radabaugh Amplex mark@amplex.net 419.837.5015
On Jun 11, 2011, at 7:07 PM, Roy wrote:
On 6/11/2011 4:29 PM, Christopher Pilkington wrote:
Options seem to be limited to HughesNet and dial for the moment, but things may change if I put a tower on the property. HughesNet seems to relax it's bandwidth cap between 2am and 7am, which is helpful, but still a great shift from what I'm used to at the current residence (15/2).
No 3G cellphone service? 3G at this location is marginal at best (stand on a hill and hold the phone up above your head.)
That said, are there 3G radios that permit external antennas or are well suited to being sealed up in a weatherproof box and being placed on a
Good point. That is exactly how I got into the business. I had to have a T1 line run to the house to get enough bandwidth. At 425.33 a month, I decided to have some of my students setup a WISP at my place so the neighbors would pay for the data line instead of me. For equipment and software look at Mikrotik. Another option is the T1. If you can get an analog line, you should be able to get an ISDN or T1 line as these are typically tariffed services. -----Original Message----- From: Mark Radabaugh [mailto:mark@amplex.net] Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2011 12:22 PM To: Christopher J. Pilkington; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Yup; the Internet is screwed up. On 6/12/11 1:04 PM, Christopher J. Pilkington wrote: pole/tower?
3G would get us around the 200-300MiB/day issue, but I'm fairly certain
I'll be dealing with similar monthly caps. I can really hope for a wISP nearby, but so far my research hasn't turned up anything. Is there some wISP marketplace/directory about?
The final option would be to unofficially put hardware on the roof of my
office 50km away with some high-gain antennas, but the path is marginally LOS, I think I might need a very large tower at either end.
-cjp
www.wispa.org is probably the largest organization. Every state in the US has a broadband mapping project that should be able to tell you who is in the area and what options you have (assuming that you are in the US which might not be true). If there are no other providers around (or they don't do a good job) it's not that hard to build your own. It doesn't take a very large population density to make a viable business. Just don't try to build a wISP with 802.11x equipment. A properly built wISP network competes quite well with HFC networks in speed and reliability. The technology is evolving quickly with capacity and reliability making significant gains. -- Mark Radabaugh Amplex mark@amplex.net 419.837.5015
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 11:04:46AM -0600, Christopher J. Pilkington wrote:
On Jun 11, 2011, at 7:07 PM, Roy wrote:
On 6/11/2011 4:29 PM, Christopher Pilkington wrote:
Options seem to be limited to HughesNet and dial for the moment, but things may change if I put a tower on the property. HughesNet seems to relax it's bandwidth cap between 2am and 7am, which is helpful, but still a great shift from what I'm used to at the current residence (15/2).
No 3G cellphone service?
3G at this location is marginal at best (stand on a hill and hold the phone up above your head.)
That said, are there 3G radios that permit external antennas or are well suited to being sealed up in a weatherproof box and being placed on a pole/tower?
The little USB stick I just retired in favour of tethering (Huawei U160(?); I can dig up the model number if it's important) has a tiny antenna connection port. I've seen people on the train with a small flat antenna hooked up to these sorts of devices; I'd assume that there are big-ass antennas that are much more efficient and more suitable for permanent mounting somewhere useful. - Matt
On Jun 12, 2011, at 10:04 AM, Christopher J. Pilkington wrote:
On Jun 11, 2011, at 7:07 PM, Roy wrote:
On 6/11/2011 4:29 PM, Christopher Pilkington wrote:
Options seem to be limited to HughesNet and dial for the moment, but things may change if I put a tower on the property. HughesNet seems to relax it's bandwidth cap between 2am and 7am, which is helpful, but still a great shift from what I'm used to at the current residence (15/2).
No 3G cellphone service?
3G at this location is marginal at best (stand on a hill and hold the phone up above your head.)
That said, are there 3G radios that permit external antennas or are well suited to being sealed up in a weatherproof box and being placed on a pole/tower?
there are... some specific to particular interface solutions. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/routers/access/wireless/hardware/notes/ant3g... most expedient approach is a card with a non-fixes antenna (like the huawei usb sticks) a crc9 to sma adapter and the appropiate antenna. paired with a cradlepoint cpe and you're probably done for less than $200.
3G would get us around the 200-300MiB/day issue, but I'm fairly certain I'll be dealing with similar monthly caps. I can really hope for a wISP nearby, but so far my research hasn't turned up anything. Is there some wISP marketplace/directory about?
The final option would be to unofficially put hardware on the roof of my office 50km away with some high-gain antennas, but the path is marginally LOS, I think I might need a very large tower at either end.
-cjp
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 05:34, Jeroen van Aart <jeroen@mompl.net> wrote:
Ricardo Ferreira wrote:
Funny, how in the title refers to the Internet globally when the article is specific about the USA.
I live in europe and we have at home 100Mbps . Mid sized city of 500k people. Some ISPs even spread WiFi across town so that subscribers can have internet access outside their homes.
Though it's nice to have why would one *need* 100 Mbps at home?
First, since when is "Why?" important/relevant? :) Second, working from home - video conferences while working with 10-30mb (mostly) Powerpoint files (that people keep insisting on emailing multiple copies of) ... and to be blunt, my time is important. If I can get that file in seconds instead of minutes that speed is important to me. Third, 4 windows laptops, 1 Ubuntu laptop, 2 phones, 1 tablet and 2 XBOXes, 1 TV - all of which get updates at certain points and are streaming/downloading various content simultaneously. And if my console (game or TV) is getting an update while I want to be playing/watching, (again) seconds instead of minutes is important :). Note that it isn't the specific speed that is important - it is relative. If a noticeable number of Internet users have access at a certain speed 1) services can be built that take advantage of that and 2) those w/o that speed are even more left out. /TJ
L Thomas E Everett bb Enterprise Systems Engineering & Exploitation [G091] National Cyber Operations & Support everettt@mitre.org MITRE -- 703.983.1400 Cell 978.852.2400 ----- Original Message ----- From: TJ [mailto:trejrco@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 07:39 AM To: nanog@nanog.org <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Yup; the Internet is screwed up. On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 05:34, Jeroen van Aart <jeroen@mompl.net> wrote:
Ricardo Ferreira wrote:
Funny, how in the title refers to the Internet globally when the article is specific about the USA.
I live in europe and we have at home 100Mbps . Mid sized city of 500k people. Some ISPs even spread WiFi across town so that subscribers can have internet access outside their homes.
Though it's nice to have why would one *need* 100 Mbps at home?
First, since when is "Why?" important/relevant? :) Second, working from home - video conferences while working with 10-30mb (mostly) Powerpoint files (that people keep insisting on emailing multiple copies of) ... and to be blunt, my time is important. If I can get that file in seconds instead of minutes that speed is important to me. Third, 4 windows laptops, 1 Ubuntu laptop, 2 phones, 1 tablet and 2 XBOXes, 1 TV - all of which get updates at certain points and are streaming/downloading various content simultaneously. And if my console (game or TV) is getting an update while I want to be playing/watching, (again) seconds instead of minutes is important :). Note that it isn't the specific speed that is important - it is relative. If a noticeable number of Internet users have access at a certain speed 1) services can be built that take advantage of that and 2) those w/o that speed are even more left out. /TJ
I don't regard simultaneously streaming 6 channels of TV and downloading the latest movie torrent in 2 minutes as a basic necessity, let alone essential.
Ten years ago, most people would have been shocked at the idea of a cell phone that had a touchscreen, a 600MHz CPU, 16GB flash, and the ability to download at 1Mbps. Yet today many people find that limiting. You might not feel that it's important to be able to stream 6 channels of TV and a torrent, but some of us have been saying for some time that things are changing. The number of TV's in a household are going up. Some can now stream directly to the TV. I have numerous devices that stream Internet radio audio, something that would have seemed completely frivolous 15 years ago, but today my AV receiver comes with the capability built-in and I even have an alarm clock that'll do it, not to mention all the MP3 players, tablet computers, etc. Streaming video is more demanding, certainly, but for a large family, what you propose isn't necessarily way out there, especially if we think about ten years down the road. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
Joe Greco wrote:
that things are changing. The number of TV's in a household are going up. Some can now stream directly to the TV. I have numerous devices
How can it go up even more? I thought every bedroom and living room has one by now, in the average family house. In my experience families have fared pretty well getting these TV signals through more traditional means.
that stream Internet radio audio, something that would have seemed completely frivolous 15 years ago, but today my AV receiver comes with
There has been in place for many decades multiple perfectly viable alternatives of getting TV or radio signals into your house. Using your good old antenna, satellite, cable... Considering these alternatives I'd say the idea of the internet replacing old existing infrastructures shouldn't be the top priority. Now if you mean added functionality or special ways of doing things that delivering content over the internet can provide I can see a point. Be that as it may, I don't think current methods and techniques in use will scale well to fully replace antennas, satellite and cable to provide tv and radio signals. (remembering for example the recent discussion about multicast) -- http://goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/ http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/plural-of-virus.html
Joe Greco wrote:
that things are changing. The number of TV's in a household are going up. Some can now stream directly to the TV. I have numerous devices
How can it go up even more? I thought every bedroom and living room has one by now, in the average family house.
That's not universally true. It is, however, becoming more true as the cost of the devices drops and the form factor becomes more convenient. At one time, families could only afford the money and space for a single TV; they were large, expensive console affairs. Now I can have a TV on the wall in my office which does multiple duty as an additional screen for less-resolution-intensive computer uses, customer presentation purposes, and oh yes it can act as a highly competent TV capable of over the air, cable, or Internet stuff too. It's feasible to stick a TV on most any wall, without losing floorspace. And last I checked, TV's of a respectable size were only a few hundred bucks.
In my experience families have fared pretty well getting these TV signals through more traditional means.
People said similar things in the Days Before Cable. And then before the Days Before Satellite TV. While it's true, it's only *so* true. There's a ton of stuff, for example, that's available on Netflix streaming that hasn't been aired on commercial TV (at least that I've seen) in a very long time. Those of us who are TiVo fans are used to being able to have meaningful selections of shows available to watch at our convenience. This, however, is a process that involves being aware of the shows that are interesting and going to be broadcast, or hoping that the TiVo will "guess" as to what we like, which is only so likely. By way of comparison, Netflix streaming - while limited in show selection - offers the convenience of TiVo-style "on demand" viewing without being limited to the 980 hours our TiVo is capable of storing. There are many thousands of hours of TV instantly available, and the way it seems to be to me, it is only likely to go up.
that stream Internet radio audio, something that would have seemed completely frivolous 15 years ago, but today my AV receiver comes with
There has been in place for many decades multiple perfectly viable alternatives of getting TV or radio signals into your house. Using your good old antenna, satellite, cable... Considering these alternatives I'd say the idea of the internet replacing old existing infrastructures shouldn't be the top priority.
Shouldn't be? Maybe. But these things happen.
Now if you mean added functionality or special ways of doing things that delivering content over the internet can provide I can see a point.
Be that as it may, I don't think current methods and techniques in use will scale well to fully replace antennas, satellite and cable to provide tv and radio signals.
I remember when the same was being said of VoIP back when 33.6 modems were the majority consumer access device. Even now, VoIP isn't that prevalent, but it is becoming moreso. It's a slow process, but the convenience is there. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
On Jun 22, 2011, at 12:30 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
Joe Greco wrote:
that things are changing. The number of TV's in a household are going up. Some can now stream directly to the TV. I have numerous devices
How can it go up even more? I thought every bedroom and living room has one by now, in the average family house. In my experience families have fared pretty well getting these TV signals through more traditional means.
that stream Internet radio audio, something that would have seemed completely frivolous 15 years ago, but today my AV receiver comes with
There has been in place for many decades multiple perfectly viable alternatives of getting TV or radio signals into your house. Using your good old antenna, satellite, cable... Considering these alternatives I'd say the idea of the internet replacing old existing infrastructures shouldn't be the top priority.
Now if you mean added functionality or special ways of doing things that delivering content over the internet can provide I can see a point.
Be that as it may, I don't think current methods and techniques in use will scale well to fully replace antennas, satellite and cable to provide tv and radio signals.
(remembering for example the recent discussion about multicast)
They won't, but, that's not what consumers think about when they decide where to get their content. Consumers look at convenience, cost, and availability. In some cases, quality also enters the picture. If you don't believe that consumer content acquisition is shifting away from traditional methods towards internet-oriented mechanisms rapidly, you haven't been paying attention to the bandwidth growth at Netflix as just one example. Hulu, Youtube, and even the various networks own web-based episode streaming services are all additional examples that cannot be ignored. We're going to have to either find a way to convince consumers to change direction, or, we're going to have to develop new methods and techniques that will scale to fully replace antennas, satellite, and cable because that's what consumers are starting to do. Owen
Be that as it may, I don't think current methods and techniques in use = will scale well to fully replace antennas, satellite and cable to = provide tv and radio signals. =20 (remembering for example the recent discussion about multicast) =20 They won't, but, that's not what consumers think about when they decide = where to get their content.
Consumers look at convenience, cost, and availability. In some cases, = quality also enters the picture.
If you don't believe that consumer content acquisition is shifting away = from traditional methods towards internet-oriented mechanisms rapidly, = you haven't been paying attention to the bandwidth growth at Netflix as = just one example. Hulu, Youtube, and even the various networks own = web-based episode streaming services are all additional examples that = cannot be ignored.
We're going to have to either find a way to convince consumers to change = direction, or, we're going to have to develop new methods and techniques = that will scale to fully replace antennas, satellite, and cable because = that's what consumers are starting to do.
I've been arguing that we're going to see this for years now and even so it comes up and catches me a bit unaware at times. I can think of two trivial examples. I used to like doing long-haul driving on the weekends because it'd give me a chance to listen to "Car Talk" and a few other things that I found amusing ways to keep myself from being totally bored. With the advent of podcasts, I got away from that... it became possible to download them and stick them on an iPod so I could listen to my convenience. But wait... it gets worse... now I can run an app on a phone that actually downloads the podcast over the cellular internet and plays it to me on demand, so I don't even need to plan ahead and download prior to leaving the house or office. From a network operator's perspective, this is worst-case behaviour because it's using a scarce resource (cell bw) for something that I could have done on normal Internet in advance, but from a convenience point of view, I get to ditch having to worry about iTunes and syncing and all that - I just ask for the content when I actually want it. It works. I feel moderately justified in saying that I pay for the privilege, given what the carrier charges for cell data. It's so *convenient.* I also picked up an Aluratek AIRMM01 clock radio a while back because I wanted to be able to have a radio that played a specific kind of music in a specific room, without much advertising. While I had originally planned to load up a USB thumb drive with some CD's worth of content I already had, upon plugging the thing in and playing with it a bit, it fairly easily hooked up to our wifi, and had a really massive list of available stations, including some of the type I was looking for, and which I've yet to hear any advertising on. From a network operator's perspective, it'd be much better for me to load up a USB flash with some content and let it play that, but from a user's perspective, it's actually more convenient to just let it stream audio over the Internet. Both of these represent use cases where the outcomes were not what I had originally envisioned, and are causing more load on bits of the Internet than what's ideally required. Your average person cares a whole lot less about what's crossing their Internet connection than they care about whether or not "this works" than I do. I continue to be amazed at the quality of Netflix video coming across the wire. Our local cable company just recently upped their old 7M/512K normal tier to 10M/1M, and is now offering much higher speed tiers as well, which isn't going to be discouraging to anyone wanting to do this sort of thing. I guess the most telling bit of all this was when I found myself needing an ethernet switch behind the TV, AND WAS ABLE TO FILL ALL THE PORTS, for Internet-capable TV set Internet-capable Blu-Ray player Networkable TiVo AppleTV Video Game Console Networked AV Receiver UPS and an uplink of course. 8 ports. Geez. That keeps striking me as such a paradigm shift. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
On 23/06/2011, at 8:07 AM, Joe Greco <jgreco@ns.sol.net> wrote:
Be that as it may, I don't think current methods and techniques in use = will scale well to fully replace antennas, satellite and cable to = provide tv and radio signals. =20 (remembering for example the recent discussion about multicast) =20 They won't, but, that's not what consumers think about when they decide = where to get their content.
Consumers look at convenience, cost, and availability. In some cases, = quality also enters the picture.
It's interesting in an "Innovator's Dilemma" sort of way. Consumers are moving from time-based consumption to time-shifted consumption. As (we) technologists finds ways to bring the market what it wants in a cost-effective manner the old methods to deliver content are eclipsed. If we can scale to deliver the majority of content from the big hard drive in the sky the market for cable and television's linear programming signals goes away. It's hard for me to think that radio will be eclipsed (but with LTE and iCloud, perhaps even that is possible). As the methods to deliver content change so will the paradigms and the descriptive language. How many kids know what an LP is? How many of their kids will understand what a "time-slot" is? How many will lose their favorite program because it was "cancelled" by the "network" -- will programs vie for real eyeballs rather than places in a "fall lineup"? Will "blanket ads" be replaced by the household's "Google Profile" and what was a Neilsen rating anyway? Our jobs are going to depend on finding ways to scale infrastructure for the convenience of others. I don't think the Internet is "screwed up" it's just reached the point of inflection after which it will scale based on convenience. Broadcast and multicast are much more efficient ways of video delivery than unicast IP, but then the PSTN was a perfectly good system, who needs cellular or VoIP? jy
On 6/22/11 3:07 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
Your average person cares a whole lot less about what's crossing their Internet connection than they care about whether or not "this works" than I do.
I continue to be amazed at the quality of Netflix video coming across the wire. Our local cable company just recently upped their old 7M/512K normal tier to 10M/1M, and is now offering much higher speed tiers as well, which isn't going to be discouraging to anyone wanting to do this sort of thing.
What still dismays me is the pitiful low upstream speeds that are still common. Not because most people want to run servers or host content at home (they don't), but because they want to share content with friends and the user experience can be greatly enhanced with symmetric speeds. Sharing those HD videos or 1,000 pictures during party weekend is less painful if it takes 10 minutes to upload rather than 10 hours. Also, things like GoToMyPC and "back to my Mac" are end user experience things that are best served by not using horribly low upstream speeds. I can understand that a decade ago most people were still sharing content offline, but dare I say now sharing online is becoming more common than offline.
I guess the most telling bit of all this was when I found myself needing an ethernet switch behind the TV, AND WAS ABLE TO FILL ALL THE PORTS, for
Internet-capable TV set Internet-capable Blu-Ray player Networkable TiVo AppleTV Video Game Console Networked AV Receiver UPS and an uplink of course. 8 ports. Geez.
That keeps striking me as such a paradigm shift.
I was talking to one of my friends about when we wired his house a while back. When he moved in we wired the crap out of it - we put Ethernet ports in the kitchen, behind the sofa, everywhere. The one place we didn't put anything though was behind the entertainment center. We put it lots of coax and wiring for surround sound, but at the time it never occurred to us to put Ethernet there. Of course, now there has to be without question. ~Seth
My big concern with pitiful low speed upstream speed is the whole 'cloud' movement. Every one will have all of their 'data' in the 'cloud' sooner than we all think, and that involves uploading it from their PC to the 'cloud'. For instance, I use a 'cloud' drive to backup bunches of data (150+GB of data). However, doing the initial backup really is no fun, even though I have a 10Mbps connection at home, the upload is more like 1.5Mbps. 150GB over 1.5Mbps is no fun, and most 'non-technical' folks would have given up a long time ago trying to backup that data... The 'cloud' is going to create a strong 'want' (some may choose to call it a 'need') for higher speed brodband, and symmetrical speeds. - Erik -----Original Message----- From: Seth Mattinen [mailto:sethm@rollernet.us] Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 1:52 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Yup; the Internet is screwed up. On 6/22/11 3:07 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
Your average person cares a whole lot less about what's crossing their Internet connection than they care about whether or not "this works" than I do.
I continue to be amazed at the quality of Netflix video coming across the wire. Our local cable company just recently upped their old 7M/512K normal tier to 10M/1M, and is now offering much higher speed tiers as well, which isn't going to be discouraging to anyone wanting to do this sort of thing.
What still dismays me is the pitiful low upstream speeds that are still common. Not because most people want to run servers or host content at home (they don't), but because they want to share content with friends and the user experience can be greatly enhanced with symmetric speeds. Sharing those HD videos or 1,000 pictures during party weekend is less painful if it takes 10 minutes to upload rather than 10 hours. Also, things like GoToMyPC and "back to my Mac" are end user experience things that are best served by not using horribly low upstream speeds. I can understand that a decade ago most people were still sharing content offline, but dare I say now sharing online is becoming more common than offline.
I guess the most telling bit of all this was when I found myself needing an ethernet switch behind the TV, AND WAS ABLE TO FILL ALL THE PORTS, for
Internet-capable TV set Internet-capable Blu-Ray player Networkable TiVo AppleTV Video Game Console Networked AV Receiver UPS and an uplink of course. 8 ports. Geez.
That keeps striking me as such a paradigm shift.
I was talking to one of my friends about when we wired his house a while back. When he moved in we wired the crap out of it - we put Ethernet ports in the kitchen, behind the sofa, everywhere. The one place we didn't put anything though was behind the entertainment center. We put it lots of coax and wiring for surround sound, but at the time it never occurred to us to put Ethernet there. Of course, now there has to be without question. ~Seth
Owen DeLong wrote:
If you don't believe that consumer content acquisition is shifting away from traditional methods towards internet-oriented mechanisms rapidly, you haven't been paying attention to the bandwidth growth at Netflix as just one example. Hulu, Youtube, and even the various networks own web-based episode streaming services are all additional examples that cannot be ignored.
For the record I do believe that.
We're going to have to either find a way to convince consumers to change direction, or, we're going to have to develop new methods and techniques that will scale to fully replace antennas, satellite, and cable because that's what consumers are starting to do.
I hope for the latter. It just pains me to think how to do this with existing techniques in use. Greetings, Jeroen -- http://goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/ http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/plural-of-virus.html
On Jun 22, 2011, at 4:06 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
We're going to have to either find a way to convince consumers to change direction, or, we're going to have to develop new methods and techniques that will scale to fully replace antennas, satellite, and cable because that's what consumers are starting to do.
I hope for the latter. It just pains me to think how to do this with existing techniques in use.
Not only will it happen but it will cost less per byte delivered than the other distribution methods and enable applications that aren't simply broadcast one to many. Geoff had a presentation a couple of years ago that projected the cost per byte that was necessary to make the growth projection pan out economically out a decade or two to the right if I recall, we get to build that.
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 05:34, Jeroen van Aart <jeroen@mompl.net> wrote:
Though it's nice to have why would one *need* 100 Mbps at home?
The essential point is: if people have the bandwidth, they fill it, sometimes with uses we haven't dreamed up yet. In the USA at least, creativity and productivity are _often_ bandwidth-limited (that's documented). Open the door and you get a positive feedback loop of: opportunity -> creativity -> perceived need -> services -> opportunity, leading to More Money For Everyone, including ISPs.
On Jun 11, 2011, at 5:34 10AM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
Ricardo Ferreira wrote:
Funny, how in the title refers to the Internet globally when the article is specific about the USA. I live in europe and we have at home 100Mbps . Mid sized city of 500k people. Some ISPs even spread WiFi across town so that subscribers can have internet access outside their homes.
Though it's nice to have why would one *need* 100 Mbps at home? I understand the necessity of internet access and agree everyone has a right to it. But that necessity can be perfectly fulfilled with a stable internet connection of a reasonable speed (say low to mid range DSL speed tops).
When I was in grad school, the director of the computer center (remember those) felt that there was no need for 1200 bps modems -- 300 bps was fine, since no one could read the scrolling output any faster than that anyway. Right now, I'm running an rsync job to back up my laptop's hard drive to my office. I hope it finishes before I leave today for Denver. --Steve Bellovin, https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
Steven Bellovin wrote:
When I was in grad school, the director of the computer center (remember those) felt that there was no need for 1200 bps modems -- 300 bps was fine, since no one could read the scrolling output any faster than that anyway.
Right now, I'm running an rsync job to back up my laptop's hard drive to my office. I hope it finishes before I leave today for Denver.
I understand the sentiment, but the comparison is flawed in my opinion. The speeds back then were barely any faster than you could type, I know all too well the horrors of 1200/75 baud connectivity. Luckily nowadays now it's about getting your dvd torrent downloaded in 2 minutes, vs. 20 minutes, or 2 hours. Or your whole disk backed up before your flight leaves. You're now able to back it up online to begin with. The thing here is that I talk about *necessity*. Once connectivity has reached a certain speed threshold having increased speed generally starts leaning towards *would be nice* instead of *must*. And so far the examples people gave are almost all more in the realm of luxury problems than problems that hinder your life in fundamental ways. If you have a 100 mbps broadband connection and your toddlers are slowing down your video conference call with your boss by watching the newest Dexter (hah!). Then your *need* can be easily satisfied by telling your toddlers to cut the crap for a while. Sure it'd be nice if your toddlers could watch Dexter kill another victim whilst you were having a smooth video conference talk with your boss, but it's not necessary. Greetings, Jeroen -- http://goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/ http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/plural-of-virus.html
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Jeroen van Aart <jeroen@mompl.net> wrote:
If you have a 100 mbps broadband connection and your toddlers are slowing down your video conference call with your boss by watching the newest Dexter (hah!). Then your *need* can be easily satisfied by telling your toddlers to cut the crap for a while. Sure it'd be nice if your toddlers could watch Dexter kill another victim whilst you were having a smooth video conference talk with your boss, but it's not necessary.
+1 best comment I've read all day :-D -- Landon Stewart <LStewart@SUPERB.NET> SuperbHosting.Net by Superb Internet Corp. Toll Free (US/Canada): 888-354-6128 x 4199 Direct: 206-438-5879 Web hosting and more "Ahead of the Rest": http://www.superbhosting.net
Landon Stewart wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Jeroen van Aart <jeroen@mompl.net> wrote:
If you have a 100 mbps broadband connection and your toddlers are slowing down your video conference call with your boss by watching the newest Dexter (hah!). Then your *need* can be easily satisfied by telling your toddlers to cut the crap for a while. Sure it'd be nice if your toddlers could watch Dexter kill another victim whilst you were having a smooth video conference talk with your boss, but it's not necessary.
+1 best comment I've read all day :-D
I just *have* to say, "me too"...and as Jeroen says, some things work fine just the way they are. I waited 30+ years to be able to see the puck in a Hockey game via OTA Broadcast HDTV, and now Genachowski wants to use that spectrum so I can watch the game on a 3x3 in. screen.<sigh>
If you have a 100mbps video connection and you can't handle a video conference in parallel with Dexter you may have bigger issues. :) -Hammer- On 06/22/2011 03:45 PM, Michael Painter wrote:
Landon Stewart wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Jeroen van Aart <jeroen@mompl.net> wrote:
If you have a 100 mbps broadband connection and your toddlers are slowing down your video conference call with your boss by watching the newest Dexter (hah!). Then your *need* can be easily satisfied by telling your toddlers to cut the crap for a while. Sure it'd be nice if your toddlers could watch Dexter kill another victim whilst you were having a smooth video conference talk with your boss, but it's not necessary.
+1 best comment I've read all day :-D
I just *have* to say, "me too"...and as Jeroen says, some things work fine just the way they are. I waited 30+ years to be able to see the puck in a Hockey game via OTA Broadcast HDTV, and now Genachowski wants to use that spectrum so I can watch the game on a 3x3 in. screen.<sigh>
On 6/22/11 12:48 PM, "Jeroen van Aart" <jeroen@mompl.net> wrote:
Steven Bellovin wrote:
When I was in grad school, the director of the computer center (remember those) felt that there was no need for 1200 bps modems -- 300 bps was fine, since no one could read the scrolling output any faster than that anyway.
Right now, I'm running an rsync job to back up my laptop's hard drive to my office. I hope it finishes before I leave today for Denver.
I understand the sentiment, but the comparison is flawed in my opinion. The speeds back then were barely any faster than you could type, I know all too well the horrors of 1200/75 baud connectivity.
Luckily nowadays now it's about getting your dvd torrent downloaded in 2 minutes, vs. 20 minutes, or 2 hours. Or your whole disk backed up before your flight leaves. You're now able to back it up online to begin with.
The thing here is that I talk about *necessity*. Once connectivity has reached a certain speed threshold having increased speed generally starts leaning towards *would be nice* instead of *must*.
And so far the examples people gave are almost all more in the realm of luxury problems than problems that hinder your life in fundamental ways.
If you have a 100 mbps broadband connection and your toddlers are slowing down your video conference call with your boss by watching the newest Dexter (hah!). Then your *need* can be easily satisfied by telling your toddlers to cut the crap for a while. Sure it'd be nice if your toddlers could watch Dexter kill another victim whilst you were having a smooth video conference talk with your boss, but it's not necessary.
Greetings, Jeroen
To paraphrase Randy Bush - I hope all my competitors work on their version of what their customers "need" versus what they "want". Why on earth would you not want to give them what they want? Why does "need" have anything to do with it, particularly when "need" is impossible to quantify? Mike
I agree, the whole use of the terms 'need' and 'want' in this conversation are ridiculous. It's the Internet. The entire thing isn't a 'need'. It's not like life support or something that will cause loss of life if it isn't there. The only thing to even discuss here is 'want'. Yes, consumers 'want' super-fast Internet, faster than any of us can comprehend right now. 1Tbps to the house, for everyone, for cheap! - Erik -----Original Message----- From: Michael K. Smith - Adhost [mailto:mksmith@adhost.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 3:19 PM To: Jeroen van Aart; NANOG list Subject: Re: Yup; the Internet is screwed up. On 6/22/11 12:48 PM, "Jeroen van Aart" <jeroen@mompl.net> wrote:
Steven Bellovin wrote:
When I was in grad school, the director of the computer center (remember those) felt that there was no need for 1200 bps modems -- 300 bps was fine, since no one could read the scrolling output any faster than that anyway.
Right now, I'm running an rsync job to back up my laptop's hard drive to my office. I hope it finishes before I leave today for Denver.
I understand the sentiment, but the comparison is flawed in my opinion. The speeds back then were barely any faster than you could type, I know all too well the horrors of 1200/75 baud connectivity.
Luckily nowadays now it's about getting your dvd torrent downloaded in 2 minutes, vs. 20 minutes, or 2 hours. Or your whole disk backed up before your flight leaves. You're now able to back it up online to begin with.
The thing here is that I talk about *necessity*. Once connectivity has reached a certain speed threshold having increased speed generally starts leaning towards *would be nice* instead of *must*.
And so far the examples people gave are almost all more in the realm of luxury problems than problems that hinder your life in fundamental ways.
If you have a 100 mbps broadband connection and your toddlers are slowing down your video conference call with your boss by watching the newest Dexter (hah!). Then your *need* can be easily satisfied by telling your toddlers to cut the crap for a while. Sure it'd be nice if your toddlers could watch Dexter kill another victim whilst you were having a smooth video conference talk with your boss, but it's not necessary.
Greetings, Jeroen
To paraphrase Randy Bush - I hope all my competitors work on their version of what their customers "need" versus what they "want". Why on earth would you not want to give them what they want? Why does "need" have anything to do with it, particularly when "need" is impossible to quantify? Mike
On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 15:52:17 CDT, Erik Amundson said:
I agree, the whole use of the terms 'need' and 'want' in this conversation are ridiculous. It's the Internet. The entire thing isn't a 'need'. It's not like life support or something that will cause loss of life if it isn't there.
If you're using e-mail and other communication technology to organize a regime change as is currently ongoing in the Middle East, the lack of it *can* cause loss of life if somebody literally doesn't get the memo. (Don't start in on the whole "it shouldn't be used for life-critical applications" unless you (a) are currently *in* one of the affected countries and (b) have a better *viable*, *deployable* suggestion for the populace. :)
life safety systems run over the internet and pstn all the time if you want to talk about need. Replace need with business requirement, and you're most of the way there... This discussion was going on this list 10-15 years ago and the numbers being squabled over were three orders of magnitude lower then they are today. In 2021 I don't think gig-e to the curb, or what it's applications might be will be particularly controversial. joel On Jun 22, 2011, at 1:52 PM, Erik Amundson wrote:
I agree, the whole use of the terms 'need' and 'want' in this conversation are ridiculous. It's the Internet. The entire thing isn't a 'need'. It's not like life support or something that will cause loss of life if it isn't there. The only thing to even discuss here is 'want'. Yes, consumers 'want' super-fast Internet, faster than any of us can comprehend right now. 1Tbps to the house, for everyone, for cheap!
- Erik
This discussion was going on this list 10-15 years ago and the numbers being squabled over were three orders of magnitude lower then they are today.
and will be discussed again when the numbers are orders of magnitude greater than they are now. i think we should keep a pointer to this thread and to the "we don't need" folk so we can replay it for them then. randy, who lives in a country which has real 2000-speed broadband to the home (and i use it)
I agree, the whole use of the terms 'need' and 'want' in this conversation are ridiculous. It's the Internet. The entire thing isn't a 'need'. It's not like life support or something that will cause loss of life if it isn't there. The only thing to even discuss here is 'want'. Yes, consumers 'want' super-fast Internet, faster than any of us can comprehend right now. 1Tbps to the house, for everyone, for cheap!
Wait, the internet isn't a need? Is this 1991? Of course it's a need, as surely as heat or electricity are needs. Without even trying, I can think of a dozen life-safety systems that rely solely on the internet for their functionality. Nathan
On 6/22/2011 14:33, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
I agree, the whole use of the terms 'need' and 'want' in this conversation are ridiculous. It's the Internet. The entire thing isn't a 'need'. It's not like life support or something that will cause loss of life if it isn't there. The only thing to even discuss here is 'want'. Yes, consumers 'want' super-fast Internet, faster than any of us can comprehend right now. 1Tbps to the house, for everyone, for cheap!
Wait, the internet isn't a need? Is this 1991? Of course it's a need, as surely as heat or electricity are needs.
Without even trying, I can think of a dozen life-safety systems that rely solely on the internet for their functionality.
Life safety aside, enough common stuff is moving online (whether it's paying bills, schoolwork, or preparing forms for the DMV ahead of time), and it's slowly becoming a disadvantage to not have the internet. ~Seth
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 05:47:18PM -0700, Seth Mattinen wrote:
On 6/22/2011 14:33, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
I agree, the whole use of the terms 'need' and 'want' in this conversation are ridiculous. It's the Internet. The entire thing isn't a 'need'. It's not like life support or something that will cause loss of life if it isn't there. The only thing to even discuss here is 'want'. Yes, consumers 'want' super-fast Internet, faster than any of us can comprehend right now. 1Tbps to the house, for everyone, for cheap!
Wait, the internet isn't a need? Is this 1991? Of course it's a need, as surely as heat or electricity are needs.
Without even trying, I can think of a dozen life-safety systems that rely solely on the internet for their functionality.
Life safety aside, enough common stuff is moving online (whether it's paying bills, schoolwork, or preparing forms for the DMV ahead of time), and it's slowly becoming a disadvantage to not have the internet.
A friend is having to job-hunt. It pretty much _requires_ Net access. -- Mike Andrews, W5EGO mikea@mikea.ath.cx Tired old sysadmin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeroen van Aart" <jeroen@mompl.net>
Though it's nice to have why would one *need* 100 Mbps at home?
(I can't imagine that no one's gone here yet...) Jeroen: does your computer have more than 640KB of RAM? Cheers, -- jr 'or your cellphone? Watch?' a -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jared Mauch" <jared@puck.nether.net>
The current set of iphone/ipad firmware updates are about 700mb per device. Not counting the latest combo updater (or incremental) for MacOS. (Hopefully with the 5.0 software announced they will do OTA updates on a different APN that doesn't count against ones data limits).
"Delta RPMs". Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
On 6/10/2011 7:04 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
The Internet is now more important than electricity or water --
This being a silly Sunday, I'm rolling that around on my tongue and savoring it a bit. While the image of a desiccated user, still typing away, is appealing -- but possibly not all that remarkable, given recent reports of Internet addiction -- what's especially tasty is the idea of having an Internet connection that works without electricity... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Jay Ashworth wrote:
Even Cracked realizes this:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-reasons-internet-access-in-america-disaster
That can't be good.
<ignorant?> "up to 10 percent of the country can't even get basic broadband" I think I saw much larger numbers a few years ago when I read some hype stories about how broadband access in the USA sucks. I am positively surprised the gap has narrowed that much. I wonder, what's wrong with dialup through ISDN? You get speed that is about the same as low end broadband I'd say. And I think it'd be available at these locations where DSL is not. To quote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadband_Internet_access#ISDN "A basic rate ISDN line (known as ISDN-BRI) is an ISDN line with 2 data "bearer" channels (DS0 - 64 kbit/s each). Using ISDN terminal adapters (erroneously called modems), it is possible to bond together 2 or more separate ISDN-BRI lines to reach bandwidths of 256 kbit/s or more. The ISDN channel bonding technology has been used for video conference applications and broadband data transmission." My low end home DSL connection has similar bandwidth. With regards to the writer's main gripe, if your telecommute work typically consists of ssh sessions and email then even y'olde dialup will do just fine. </ignorant?> -- http://goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/ http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/plural-of-virus.html
On Jun 10, 2011, at 7:43 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
Jay Ashworth wrote:
Even Cracked realizes this: http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-reasons-internet-access-in-america-disaster That can't be good.
<ignorant?>
"up to 10 percent of the country can't even get basic broadband"
I think I saw much larger numbers a few years ago when I read some hype stories about how broadband access in the USA sucks. I am positively surprised the gap has narrowed that much.
I wonder, what's wrong with dialup through ISDN? You get speed that is about the same as low end broadband I'd say. And I think it'd be available at these locations where DSL is not.
To quote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadband_Internet_access#ISDN
"A basic rate ISDN line (known as ISDN-BRI) is an ISDN line with 2 data "bearer" channels (DS0 - 64 kbit/s each). Using ISDN terminal adapters (erroneously called modems), it is possible to bond together 2 or more separate ISDN-BRI lines to reach bandwidths of 256 kbit/s or more. The ISDN channel bonding technology has been used for video conference applications and broadband data transmission."
My low end home DSL connection has similar bandwidth. With regards to the writer's main gripe, if your telecommute work typically consists of ssh sessions and email then even y'olde dialup will do just fine.
</ignorant?>
Try ordering one. If I wanted one here I couldn't order one today. Years ago I had a bonded BRI serving my first server and and it took 3 months to get it working. I am not sure central offices have that capability any more. There was also a distance constraint from the CO (kinda like the distance issue from the DSLAM demark) I have a fishing cabin out in the middle of nowhere and I get broadband via a small ISP that serves via Canopy coresiding on 300 ft cell towers. This provides 1-20Mbps service even when the cell towers only provide Edge Tom
I love how articles like this seem to convienently ignore the fact that the US is a BIG COUNTRY, and countries like Korea and Japan are very small countries comparitively. I haven't done any research to backup the following claim, but I suspect that the Russian Federation's internet probably isn't on the level of these much smaller, denser countries. Anecdotal evidence from friends in Russia about the quality (or lack thereof) of their connections would support this claim though. On Jun 10, 2011 4:44 PM, "Jeroen van Aart" <jeroen@mompl.net> wrote:
Jay Ashworth wrote:
Even Cracked realizes this:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-reasons-internet-access-in-america-disaster
That can't be good.
<ignorant?>
"up to 10 percent of the country can't even get basic broadband"
I think I saw much larger numbers a few years ago when I read some hype stories about how broadband access in the USA sucks. I am positively surprised the gap has narrowed that much.
I wonder, what's wrong with dialup through ISDN? You get speed that is about the same as low end broadband I'd say. And I think it'd be available at these locations where DSL is not.
To quote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadband_Internet_access#ISDN
"A basic rate ISDN line (known as ISDN-BRI) is an ISDN line with 2 data "bearer" channels (DS0 - 64 kbit/s each). Using ISDN terminal adapters (erroneously called modems), it is possible to bond together 2 or more separate ISDN-BRI lines to reach bandwidths of 256 kbit/s or more. The ISDN channel bonding technology has been used for video conference applications and broadband data transmission."
My low end home DSL connection has similar bandwidth. With regards to the writer's main gripe, if your telecommute work typically consists of ssh sessions and email then even y'olde dialup will do just fine.
</ignorant?>
-- http://goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/ http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/plural-of-virus.html
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 16:43:39 PDT, Jeroen van Aart said:
Jay Ashworth wrote:
Even Cracked realizes this:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-reasons-internet-access-in-america-disaster
That can't be good.
<ignorant?>
"up to 10 percent of the country can't even get basic broadband"
I think I saw much larger numbers a few years ago when I read some hype stories about how broadband access in the USA sucks. I am positively surprised the gap has narrowed that much.
The FCC numbers say "10% can't get it", computed on a per-county basis. However, if *one* person in one corner of the county closest to a major city can get broadband, then *everybody in the county* is counted as "can get broadband" by the FCC, even if 99.8% of them are 15 or 20 cable miles away from actually getting anything usable. So the *actual* numbers are much worse than the FCC numbers.
Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
So the *actual* numbers are much worse than the FCC numbers.
Be that as it may, when I moved to the States I had to give up DSL back in the Netherlands. But since I got flat rate dialup in return in the USA it wasn't such a big deal, for me the internet worked just fine on 56K dialup between 2002 and 2006. The reason I really wanted DSL in the first place is to get rid of those excessive phone bills. Increased speed was just an added bonus. Since most countries do not offer flat rate local phone calls I'd say that makes it a more urgent matter for them to move to broadband. Maybe flat rate local phone calls is one of the reasons broadband lags behind here. Because your bills actually increase with broadband. From a mere $10 to something like $30 and up per month. That's a considerable difference for many households. Greetings, Jeroen -- http://goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/ http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/plural-of-virus.html
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 17:59:38 PDT, Jeroen van Aart said:
Maybe flat rate local phone calls is one of the reasons broadband lags behind here. Because your bills actually increase with broadband. From a mere $10 to something like $30 and up per month. That's a considerable difference for many households.
That *is* a consideration for many, but it's generally not regarded as one of the biggest issues. The lack of an enforced build-out similar to what Ma Bell had to do 50 years ago for telephone service, and related regulatory issues that result in most areas having essentially one telco and one cable operator, both of whom are free to pick-and-choose their service areas, is a bigger issue. (Biggest single issue? Probably that some companies got really big incentives a number of years ago to deploy broadband, and were allowed to pocket the money without actually deploying. Will take quite a bit to reverse *that* fiasco...)
(Biggest single issue? Probably that some companies got really big incentives a number of years ago to deploy broadband, and were allowed to pocket the money without actually deploying. Will take quite a bit to reverse *that* fiasco...)
It sounds, Valdis, like you've been listening to Bruce Kushnick. The good news is that, after years of windward urination by Bruce, renewed scrutiny resulting from the recent T-Mobile gambit has brought more than one investigative journalist to his door. One hopes for major coverage soon. -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -
----- Original Message -----
From: "Valdis Kletnieks" <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu>
(Biggest single issue? Probably that some companies got really big incentives a number of years ago to deploy broadband, and were allowed to pocket the money without actually deploying. Will take quite a bit to reverse *that* fiasco...)
Also remember there are a lot of moves afoot to *make it illegal* for cities and other municipalities to deploy last-mile fiber, as we discussed a couple weeks ago. Who's responsible for most of that? Verizon. Can you spell FiOS? My assertion's been that they need it to save them from 30 years of "cut to clear", but someone with some insider knowledge told me once that it at least isn't that *everywhere*... Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
Also remember there are a lot of moves afoot to *make it illegal* for cities and other municipalities to deploy last-mile fiber, as we discussed a couple weeks ago. Who's responsible for most of that?
Verizon.
Can you spell FiOS?
My assertion's been that they need it to save them from 30 years of "cut to clear", but someone with some insider knowledge told me once that it at least isn't that *everywhere*...
Cheers, -- jra
Well, Time Warner too, F'r instance North Carolina. See analysis http://www.muninetworks.org/content/digging-h129-another-bill-nc-limit-local... Not exactly illegal but so many hoops that nobody will jump I suppose the TW argument is that they need a monopoly to justify investment Here in NYC, in exchange for a franchise, Verizon had to promise universal coverage by mid 2014 http://newscenter.verizon.com/press-releases/verizon/2008/verizon-files-appl... and there was no exclusive deal. j -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -
On 6/10/2011 7:43 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
I wonder, what's wrong with dialup through ISDN? You get speed that is about the same as low end broadband I'd say. And I think it'd be available at these locations where DSL is not.
Well, it "was" available. I had one ~15 years ago, and a Cisco 801 to boot. There was a big build-out in some areas, the small-town local Bell (not yet Borg'ed into the conglomerate) went all digital (well, "digital" at the time) on their new nnx CO. Still recall the Northern Telecom "network interface" boxes on the sides of houses. Closer to the city, it was "order and wait" as you had to be crossed over or patched to the nearest ISDN CO. They weren't "wholesale" digital. Most of that has converted over to DSL. But ISDN is still available (we have some video conferencing gear that uses bonded ISDN). Jeff
I had dual ISDN from nynex in the 90s. 128k woohoo! It cost me $500+/mth. j On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 9:59 PM, Jeff Kell <jeff-kell@utc.edu> wrote:
On 6/10/2011 7:43 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
I wonder, what's wrong with dialup through ISDN? You get speed that is about the same as low end broadband I'd say. And I think it'd be available at these locations where DSL is not.
Well, it "was" available. I had one ~15 years ago, and a Cisco 801 to boot. There was a big build-out in some areas, the small-town local Bell (not yet Borg'ed into the conglomerate) went all digital (well, "digital" at the time) on their new nnx CO. Still recall the Northern Telecom "network interface" boxes on the sides of houses.
Closer to the city, it was "order and wait" as you had to be crossed over or patched to the nearest ISDN CO. They weren't "wholesale" digital.
Most of that has converted over to DSL. But ISDN is still available (we have some video conferencing gear that uses bonded ISDN).
Jeff
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 21:11, Joly MacFie <joly@punkcast.com> wrote:
I had dual ISDN from nynex in the 90s. 128k woohoo! It cost me $500+/mth.
j
I still have 128k ISDN in one site in rural TN, and it's the POP for my WISP! I'd spring for a whopping 256k, but I can't justify the cost. Been running on my remaining stack of P75s for years, still have about 30 left for the lightning to kill. When it rains, it drops, and fails to a 56k modem that trains at about 19k. Just try and get the RBOC Bell (the new SBC *sigh*) to fix that. Oh and it also drops randomly, finally got me an X10 appliance module and stuck it on the router, and rigged up some nagios scripting. Nothing so reliable as an auto-rebooting router. It's the only option besides Satelite, which isn't really an option, or maybe a gold plated (price) T1 due to the distance. Squid makes it almost tolerable, until someone needs their windows updates... -Blake
Once upon a time, Jeroen van Aart <jeroen@mompl.net> said:
I wonder, what's wrong with dialup through ISDN? You get speed that is about the same as low end broadband I'd say. And I think it'd be available at these locations where DSL is not.
For the most part, it probably isn't, especially now. Telco front-line support doesn't even know what a BRI is anymore. While POTS lines are largely flat-rate for local access in the US, many telcos put per-minute charges on ISDN BRIs (and that's per-channel-minute, so 128k runs mintes at 2x wall clock time), so the "power users" that wanted higher-than-dialup speeds didn't move to ISDN very fast (because they also wanted to be on line nearly 24x7). Also, the telcos generally made getting a BRI difficult to impossible. An early string of Dilbert cartoons covered Dilbert's attempts to get ISDN at his house, and IIRC they were based on Scott Adams' real-life attempts (and this was either when or shortly after he worked for the phone company). I live in Huntsville, AL, and we supposedly were one of the first cities in BellSouth territory (if not the US) to have ISDN available at essentially every address. After a while, it usually wasn't too painful to get a BRI turned up, as long as you didn't want any special configs (such as hunting); when I got mine, it pretty much "just worked". However, the billing was confusing at best; IIRC in the several years I had ISDN service, my bill was never exactly the same amount two consecutive months (and I never had any usage charges, so it wasn't because of that). -- Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net> Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
On Jun 11, 2011, at 1:54 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
IIRC in the several years I had ISDN service, my bill was never exactly the same amount two consecutive months (and I never had any usage charges, so it wasn't because of that).
I upgraded several years ago to ISDN at home to move the D<->A conversion to my house to get clear dial-tone. About every other bill the price is adjusted up or down 2-3c due to some 'change in price'. I get 2 lines plus caller-id delivery for under $55/mo. Mobile/IP telephony for long-distance instead of sending it out the BRI. I've debated canceling the service and porting the number over to the verizon home connect box as it'd lower the cost to $19 and still leave the kids with the experience of learning their phone number and the babysitter having something they can dial with. It also likely has better battery time than my UPS setup for when the power goes out. Haven't quite convinced myself to dump the ISDN yet but i'm getting there. I do figure it's a mixture of "sticking it to at&t" to keep the service active vs "is it actually worth it". I still have a modem (not sure i'd know where to dial) if I needed to dial-out to someplace in the event of a major internet meltdown to assist. Time to revise that continuity of operations plan? :) - Jared
Also, the telcos generally made getting a BRI difficult to impossible. An early string of Dilbert cartoons covered Dilbert's attempts to get ISDN at his house, and IIRC they were based on Scott Adams' real-life attempts (and this was either when or shortly after he worked for the phone company).
I live in Huntsville, AL, and we supposedly were one of the first cities in BellSouth territory (if not the US) to have ISDN available at essentially every address.
LOL, I actually remember that one. Dilbert and Calvin & Hobbs, great way to pass the time when I had it. I'm in former BS territory myself, and as soon as they started deploying Alcatel 1000's in most of the CO's here in the south, there was a mass exodus from B channels to ADSL. Most businesses couldn't justify a $90 circuit charge from them and on top of that, $200 per B channel dedicated from us (CLEC/ISP), when we resold ADSL for $59 a month. In some cases, we were able to order 2 or 4 wires and put the customer on our own DSLAM's if they were < 15k feet from the CO (or at least no less than -6db). However, there are still places I know of today that can't even get B channels, forget about any other digital services. I don't believe that we've ordered an ISDN 128k circuit in quite some time, but I would imagine that at&t would make it very difficult to do so as their policies now pretty much put T1's in the same category as a standard POTS line as far as turn around time on a trouble ticket. A sad state to say the least :( -- m On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 12:54 AM, Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net> wrote:
Once upon a time, Jeroen van Aart <jeroen@mompl.net> said:
I wonder, what's wrong with dialup through ISDN? You get speed that is about the same as low end broadband I'd say. And I think it'd be available at these locations where DSL is not.
For the most part, it probably isn't, especially now. Telco front-line support doesn't even know what a BRI is anymore. While POTS lines are largely flat-rate for local access in the US, many telcos put per-minute charges on ISDN BRIs (and that's per-channel-minute, so 128k runs mintes at 2x wall clock time), so the "power users" that wanted higher-than-dialup speeds didn't move to ISDN very fast (because they also wanted to be on line nearly 24x7).
Also, the telcos generally made getting a BRI difficult to impossible. An early string of Dilbert cartoons covered Dilbert's attempts to get ISDN at his house, and IIRC they were based on Scott Adams' real-life attempts (and this was either when or shortly after he worked for the phone company).
I live in Huntsville, AL, and we supposedly were one of the first cities in BellSouth territory (if not the US) to have ISDN available at essentially every address. After a while, it usually wasn't too painful to get a BRI turned up, as long as you didn't want any special configs (such as hunting); when I got mine, it pretty much "just worked". However, the billing was confusing at best; IIRC in the several years I had ISDN service, my bill was never exactly the same amount two consecutive months (and I never had any usage charges, so it wasn't because of that).
-- Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net> Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
I wonder, what's wrong with dialup through ISDN? You get speed that is about the same as low end broadband I'd say. And I think it'd be available at these locations where DSL is not.
No you don't. BRI with 2 B channels bonded is 128kbit/s. Does anyone offer DSL that slow? I just had 25mbit DSL installed...though 15 of it is reserved for IPTV service. Have you heard the joke...ISDN = I Still Don't kNow? For whatever reason, BRI service is something the US telcos apparently never really wanted to sell...perhaps because it might have cut into their T1 business. Initially, with BellSouth you could get flat-rate BRI. It didn't take long for them to limit it to 200 hours/month and then charge per minute for overages. At 128kbit/s going flat out all day, you can transfer just a bit more than 1GB. Also, just the ISDN line from the telco will probably cost a couple times what DSL from the telco would cost if you could get it...and if you're in a rural area where you can't get cable or DSL, I wouldn't hold your breath for ISDN.
My low end home DSL connection has similar bandwidth.
How slow a DSL connection do you have?
With regards to the writer's main gripe, if your telecommute work typically consists of ssh sessions and email then even y'olde dialup will do just fine.
For SSH sessions, ISDN is fine and the latency is much lower than analog dialup. At home, I went from analog dialup at 14.4kbps, to 28.8/33.6kbps, to 128k ISDN (a flat rate line), to 1.5mbit DSL, to [I don't even remember the speed] several mbit cable, to now 10mbit DSL. I made sure before moving 3 years ago to where I am now that there was at least one broadband internet provider servicing the area. 3 years later, there are now two choices. If your work/life depends on internet access (particularly high speed) and you move somewhere without checking on its availability, you're not too bright. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
On June 11, 2011 at 20:53 jlewis@lewis.org (Jon Lewis) wrote:
Have you heard the joke...ISDN = I Still Don't kNow? For whatever reason, BRI service is something the US telcos apparently never really wanted to sell...perhaps because it might have cut into their T1 business.
FWIW, ISDN is pretty old, standardized in 1988 but worked on for years before that. The BIG VISION of the telcos was that ISDN would carry the whole stack, particularly services like (business) e-mail. If you're really old you remember MCI Mail which was like 20c/message. They never seriously considered a public internet like we got when architecting ISDN. Consequently the whole thing was just too expensive to deliver as a last-mile connectivity-only product. They needed revenue from the rest of the stack to make it profitable. That said, ISDN was very cool in that it was switched which meant you "dialed" something, a lot like a POTS number. It was usually an actual POTS telephone number with some more digits but whatever. But it could establish a connection in about 50msec which meant you could be dropped, say for idle, hit a key and it'd redial and you'd never notice you were dropped. Try that with POTS dial-up! You could pretty much be dropped and redialed between keystrokes and never much notice. More importantly it meant you could have more than one ISDN "ISP", like dial-up (or voice for that matter) just "dial" a different number. There was discussion, people like Sen Ed Markey of MA was interested (ca 1992?), in trying to get the phone companies to embrace first ISDN (they were reluctant, I had it at home but you really had to know how to order it etc) and then some sort of next generation ISDN which would be faster, maybe 10x, and so on. The attraction of DSL was, among other things, that it was nailed down to one and only one service provider, you couldn't just "dial" some other provider like with ISDN. This was a very important fork in the history of last-mile services, when we went from mostly switched (dial-up, maybe ISDN) to nailed-up single vendor solutions. I'd love to see some sort of "switched" last-mile services again, introduce some competition into the system, tho most likely it'd be (more) virtual over some low-level broadband service. -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
Sure its old and slow, but it is or at least was readily available to use poor country folk that cannot get DSL and so forth. The failback positions when all else is unavailable is analog, ISDN, or T1 from a landline, satellite or a WISP through the air with cellular data becoming more of an option. When I called AT&T to order the ISDN line years ago, their answer was - Huh, What, Do we sell that. -----Original Message----- From: Barry Shein [mailto:bzs@world.std.com] Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2011 1:03 PM To: Jon Lewis Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: Yup; the Internet is screwed up. On June 11, 2011 at 20:53 jlewis@lewis.org (Jon Lewis) wrote:
Have you heard the joke...ISDN = I Still Don't kNow? For whatever
reason, > BRI service is something the US telcos apparently never really wanted to > sell...perhaps because it might have cut into their T1 business. FWIW, ISDN is pretty old, standardized in 1988 but worked on for years before that. The BIG VISION of the telcos was that ISDN would carry the whole stack, particularly services like (business) e-mail. If you're really old you remember MCI Mail which was like 20c/message. They never seriously considered a public internet like we got when architecting ISDN. Consequently the whole thing was just too expensive to deliver as a last-mile connectivity-only product. They needed revenue from the rest of the stack to make it profitable. That said, ISDN was very cool in that it was switched which meant you "dialed" something, a lot like a POTS number. It was usually an actual POTS telephone number with some more digits but whatever. But it could establish a connection in about 50msec which meant you could be dropped, say for idle, hit a key and it'd redial and you'd never notice you were dropped. Try that with POTS dial-up! You could pretty much be dropped and redialed between keystrokes and never much notice. More importantly it meant you could have more than one ISDN "ISP", like dial-up (or voice for that matter) just "dial" a different number. There was discussion, people like Sen Ed Markey of MA was interested (ca 1992?), in trying to get the phone companies to embrace first ISDN (they were reluctant, I had it at home but you really had to know how to order it etc) and then some sort of next generation ISDN which would be faster, maybe 10x, and so on. The attraction of DSL was, among other things, that it was nailed down to one and only one service provider, you couldn't just "dial" some other provider like with ISDN. This was a very important fork in the history of last-mile services, when we went from mostly switched (dial-up, maybe ISDN) to nailed-up single vendor solutions. I'd love to see some sort of "switched" last-mile services again, introduce some competition into the system, tho most likely it'd be (more) virtual over some low-level broadband service. -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
When I had mine years ago I was lucky that ISDN in FL was unmetered which was no the case in other locales. However it took forever to get it installed and working correctly. Bell South had to change out pairs and get a tech from 200 miles away to get it installed right. Today, the central office in my town doesn't even support ISDN any more. As for cellular data being an option I don't think so give the increasing data caps and extra fees for overage (which is probably why "the cloud" might have big issues for mobile users) I never liked cable as around here it slows down very noticeably when the kids get off school and they don't like giving out fixed IPs unless you get a "business account." ATTuniverse has its own issues and became only available around here last year. Its the only DSL option. So I use WISP even at home just south of the space center. Tom On Jun 12, 2011, at 2:20 PM, Kenneth M. Chipps Ph.D. wrote:
Sure its old and slow, but it is or at least was readily available to use poor country folk that cannot get DSL and so forth. The failback positions when all else is unavailable is analog, ISDN, or T1 from a landline, satellite or a WISP through the air with cellular data becoming more of an option.
When I called AT&T to order the ISDN line years ago, their answer was - Huh, What, Do we sell that.
-----Original Message----- From: Barry Shein [mailto:bzs@world.std.com] Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2011 1:03 PM To: Jon Lewis Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: Yup; the Internet is screwed up.
On June 11, 2011 at 20:53 jlewis@lewis.org (Jon Lewis) wrote:
Have you heard the joke...ISDN = I Still Don't kNow? For whatever
reason, > BRI service is something the US telcos apparently never really wanted to > sell...perhaps because it might have cut into their T1 business.
FWIW, ISDN is pretty old, standardized in 1988 but worked on for years before that.
The BIG VISION of the telcos was that ISDN would carry the whole stack, particularly services like (business) e-mail. If you're really old you remember MCI Mail which was like 20c/message. They never seriously considered a public internet like we got when architecting ISDN.
Consequently the whole thing was just too expensive to deliver as a last-mile connectivity-only product. They needed revenue from the rest of the stack to make it profitable.
That said, ISDN was very cool in that it was switched which meant you "dialed" something, a lot like a POTS number. It was usually an actual POTS telephone number with some more digits but whatever.
But it could establish a connection in about 50msec which meant you could be dropped, say for idle, hit a key and it'd redial and you'd never notice you were dropped. Try that with POTS dial-up! You could pretty much be dropped and redialed between keystrokes and never much notice.
More importantly it meant you could have more than one ISDN "ISP", like dial-up (or voice for that matter) just "dial" a different number.
There was discussion, people like Sen Ed Markey of MA was interested (ca 1992?), in trying to get the phone companies to embrace first ISDN (they were reluctant, I had it at home but you really had to know how to order it etc) and then some sort of next generation ISDN which would be faster, maybe 10x, and so on.
The attraction of DSL was, among other things, that it was nailed down to one and only one service provider, you couldn't just "dial" some other provider like with ISDN.
This was a very important fork in the history of last-mile services, when we went from mostly switched (dial-up, maybe ISDN) to nailed-up single vendor solutions.
I'd love to see some sort of "switched" last-mile services again, introduce some competition into the system, tho most likely it'd be (more) virtual over some low-level broadband service.
-- -Barry Shein
The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
Once upon a time, Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com> said:
The attraction of DSL was, among other things, that it was nailed down to one and only one service provider, you couldn't just "dial" some other provider like with ISDN.
When BellSouth switched their DSL from PVC-per-customer to PPPoE, it was set up with the ability for a single line to be "subscribed" to multiple providers. The domain in the username used for PPPoE authentication was to determine to which provider the session was connected. I don't know if that capability was ever used (or even actually available). -- Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net> Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
When BellSouth switched their DSL from PVC-per-customer to PPPoE
I remember having to compress the config due to static pvc config on many of 7204/6 kit, the switch made it much more intuitive to manage. -- m On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net> wrote:
Once upon a time, Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com> said:
The attraction of DSL was, among other things, that it was nailed down to one and only one service provider, you couldn't just "dial" some other provider like with ISDN.
When BellSouth switched their DSL from PVC-per-customer to PPPoE, it was set up with the ability for a single line to be "subscribed" to multiple providers. The domain in the username used for PPPoE authentication was to determine to which provider the session was connected.
I don't know if that capability was ever used (or even actually available). -- Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net> Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
Hi List, Farmer Don here... Wonder if I could get some help please? 40°46'42.77"N - 73°58'0.83"W I found a bit of land that I like the look of, with what appears to be a nice water reserve so my animals can drink and I can water the grass. Being from New Zealand (a farming community a bit below and east of Australia), I'm sorry but I don't know much about regulations to install irrigation systems in the area that I'm quite keen to set up my next farming venture. I'm wondering if anyone can give me some pointers? Being from Christchurch (site of two massive earthquakes) I know a reasonable amount about demolition now, so I'm not worried at all about the adjacent buildings as we can deal with those as we need to expand the farm. I'm attracted to this area for a number of reasons, mainly because of the abundant wireless broadband options across the entire property. I've done some factoring and the cash I can save by not having to invest in my own wireless network spanning across the country will mean I can pay for my new dairy milking shed within 3 years, (unlike the investment I've had to make on a family property in New Zealand where our property was out side of the reach of the local Telephone companies high speed DSL service and we were going to be limited to sub ADSL1 speeds!) After reading this post on NANog and following the link provided, it really struck me as a great place to ask for assistance. Some may be wondering why I don't want a more rural setting? I want to be able to enjoy a city life style every day, and I really don't feel that's unreasonable given the rant I hearing about the right to enjoy a rural life style while also having all the quality refinements that an urban city provides. Further, I don't see why I should have to invest in my community and why others shouldn't be focused and tasked with just doing it for me! I do hope that my desire to use some of your land for my smelly cows doesn't offend any of you, but I really think my right to enjoy looking at tall buildings every day has to be respected! Cheers Farmer Don On 10/06/2011 12:43 p.m., Jay Ashworth wrote:
Even Cracked realizes this:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-reasons-internet-access-in-america-disaster
That can't be good.
Cheers, -- jra
-- Don Gould 31 Acheson Ave Mairehau Christchurch, New Zealand Ph: + 64 3 348 7235 Mobile: + 64 21 114 0699
That would be http://maps.google.com/maps?q=40.778547+-73.966897 Fortunately American Telephone and Telegraph are on the case http://bit.ly/jTak0Q j On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 9:55 PM, Don Gould <don@bowenvale.co.nz> wrote:
Hi List,
Farmer Don here... Wonder if I could get some help please?
40°46'42.77"N - 73°58'0.83"W
I found a bit of land that I like the look of, with what appears to be a nice water reserve so my animals can drink and I can water the grass.
Being from New Zealand (a farming community a bit below and east of Australia), I'm sorry but I don't know much about regulations to install irrigation systems in the area that I'm quite keen to set up my next farming venture. I'm wondering if anyone can give me some pointers?
Being from Christchurch (site of two massive earthquakes) I know a reasonable amount about demolition now, so I'm not worried at all about the adjacent buildings as we can deal with those as we need to expand the farm.
I'm attracted to this area for a number of reasons, mainly because of the abundant wireless broadband options across the entire property.
I've done some factoring and the cash I can save by not having to invest in my own wireless network spanning across the country will mean I can pay for my new dairy milking shed within 3 years, (unlike the investment I've had to make on a family property in New Zealand where our property was out side of the reach of the local Telephone companies high speed DSL service and we were going to be limited to sub ADSL1 speeds!)
After reading this post on NANog and following the link provided, it really struck me as a great place to ask for assistance.
Some may be wondering why I don't want a more rural setting?
I want to be able to enjoy a city life style every day, and I really don't feel that's unreasonable given the rant I hearing about the right to enjoy a rural life style while also having all the quality refinements that an urban city provides.
Further, I don't see why I should have to invest in my community and why others shouldn't be focused and tasked with just doing it for me!
I do hope that my desire to use some of your land for my smelly cows doesn't offend any of you, but I really think my right to enjoy looking at tall buildings every day has to be respected!
Cheers Farmer Don
On 10/06/2011 12:43 p.m., Jay Ashworth wrote:
Even Cracked realizes this:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-reasons-internet-access-in-america-disaster
That can't be good.
Cheers, -- jra
-- Don Gould 31 Acheson Ave Mairehau Christchurch, New Zealand Ph: + 64 3 348 7235 Mobile: + 64 21 114 0699
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -
Yes thank you very much Mr J for the links you provided. :) We have actually done our research, unlike the gent having a rant in the initial linked article, and were aware of the abundance of both low cost 2g, 3g and free wifi in the area. Again, as I explained it is one of the reasons for selecting settlement in the area. The savings of not having to pay for broadband access for the transceivers on each of our cows will more than off set the investment in the new milking shed (all cows are fitted with wifi/2/3g transceivers with bluetooth integrated headsets so we can do a broadcast to them telling them it's time to come in for milking). However, what does concern me is the lack of free wifi choice and the fact that only one provider is going to be delivering it and the terms they plan to offer such free access and the fact that we are generally opposed to using American Telephone and Telegraph because of their perceived alignment with some political or social groups. What we would like to see is a government mandate that all network providers in the area step up and form a long term working party for the establishment of short, mid and long term outcomes that will fully represent the interests of foreign rural farming investors such as my company. In keeping with the general tone of many technical internet mailing lists, I would also like to point out that you have not assisted in addressing the question, which I might remind you is around regulations for installation of irrigation and not the availability of free wifi from a company that very clearly has vested interests in locking my watering system investment out of the market so they can dominate the industry and impose different levels of water supply based on their shareholders interests. Farmer Don On 11/06/2011 2:23 p.m., Joly MacFie wrote:
That would be http://maps.google.com/maps?q=40.778547+-73.966897
Fortunately American Telephone and Telegraph are on the case http://bit.ly/jTak0Q
j
Yep, don't mention it One regulation you may run afoul of is the the new zero tolerance quiet zone enforcement Cowbells are definitely out, mooing dubious. http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/06/01/nina-in-new-york-grouchiness-prevails... On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 10:56 PM, Don Gould <don@bowenvale.co.nz> wrote:
Yes thank you very much Mr J for the links you provided. :)
We have actually done our research, unlike the gent having a rant in the initial linked article, and were aware of the abundance of both low cost 2g, 3g and free wifi in the area. Again, as I explained it is one of the reasons for selecting settlement in the area.
The savings of not having to pay for broadband access for the transceivers on each of our cows will more than off set the investment in the new milking shed (all cows are fitted with wifi/2/3g transceivers with bluetooth integrated headsets so we can do a broadcast to them telling them it's time to come in for milking).
However, what does concern me is the lack of free wifi choice and the fact that only one provider is going to be delivering it and the terms they plan to offer such free access and the fact that we are generally opposed to using American Telephone and Telegraph because of their perceived alignment with some political or social groups.
What we would like to see is a government mandate that all network providers in the area step up and form a long term working party for the establishment of short, mid and long term outcomes that will fully represent the interests of foreign rural farming investors such as my company.
In keeping with the general tone of many technical internet mailing lists, I would also like to point out that you have not assisted in addressing the question, which I might remind you is around regulations for installation of irrigation and not the availability of free wifi from a company that very clearly has vested interests in locking my watering system investment out of the market so they can dominate the industry and impose different levels of water supply based on their shareholders interests.
Farmer Don
On 11/06/2011 2:23 p.m., Joly MacFie wrote:
That would be http://maps.google.com/maps?q=40.778547+-73.966897
Fortunately American Telephone and Telegraph are on the case http://bit.ly/jTak0Q
j
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -
Dear Mr J, Again let me thank you for engaging this issue. However again we have done our research and were well aware of the issue before making the investment choice (unlike the OP's linked article where the writer clearly hadn't researched the availability of services/resources he needed for his primary income.) I grant you that many list members may not be aware that the rural community are in fact extremely large users of technology (gps being just one small example). When we first read about the noise issues in the area we invested a large sum of capital in an R&D facility to developed electronic cow bells that have integrated GPS in them so the cow knows where it is and can simply turn the bell off. The bells are now under manufacture in China and we are looking at export opportunities in many markets including the US (part of the reason for investment in the location you were kind enough to link before). Again, in keeping with list protocols, can we please focus on the regulations for installation if irrigation piping? Kindest and warmest regards Farmer Don On 11/06/2011 3:00 p.m., Joly MacFie wrote:
One regulation you may run afoul of is the the new zero tolerance quiet zone enforcement
Cowbells are definitely out, mooing dubious.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/06/01/nina-in-new-york-grouchiness-prevails...
-- Don Gould 31 Acheson Ave Mairehau Christchurch, New Zealand Ph: + 64 3 348 7235 Mobile: + 64 21 114 0699
When we first read about the noise issues in the area we invested a large sum of capital in an R&D facility to developed electronic cow bells that have integrated GPS in them so the cow knows where it is and can simply turn the bell off. The bells are now under manufacture in China and we are looking at export opportunities in many markets including the US (part of the reason for investment in the location you were kind enough to link before).
Well I think this would be subject to the NYC Parks Department approving multiple quiet zone database administrators via an open application process. Might take some time.
Again, in keeping with list protocols, can we please focus on the regulations for installation if irrigation piping?
In NYC the matter of additional conduits is mostly in the hands of Empire City Subway, happens to be an entirely owned subsidiary of Verizon, but quite open to doing business with anybody. I suggest you describe your pipes as "cables" to avoid difficulties. See http://www.empirecitysubway.com/dbwes_addcndt.html -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -
Dear Mr J, Many thanks for your attention and focus on the issues. I do hope that the author of the link in the OPs post has had his attention drawn to my series of posts. You have demonstrated in less then half a dozen posts that the article author simply isn't getting off his butt and getting focused on getting 1's and 0's to his location. Your responses clearly demonstrate by asking a few simple questions, and allowing those with a few clues to be creative, that there are any number of ways to get things done if you really want to.... perhaps this is a new concept for people in rural America, I don't know.... On 11/06/2011 6:46 p.m., Joly MacFie wrote:
Again, in keeping with list protocols, can we please focus on the regulations for installation if irrigation piping?
In NYC the matter of additional conduits is mostly in the hands of Empire City Subway, happens to be an entirely owned subsidiary of Verizon, but quite open to doing business with anybody. I suggest you describe your pipes as "cables" to avoid difficulties.
Again I must thank you for the link. It is with interest that you mention Verizon. In this part of the world we are very well aware of who they are and what they do. We are aware that they have deployed FTTH to 21 million homes - an inspiration that has helped to drive ftth projects in this part of the world. I am interested to know if I can get a layer 2 service delivered to my new farming location (per my earlier posts) that will be compatible with the new Australian NBN? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yd5nfhZo57w&feature=player_embedded Please start viewing from 2:30 in to the clip above and you will fully understand my need for a layer 2 service that is compatible with the NBN at the desired location. We also have a very large number of sheep to bring with us to the "new world". However they are very expensive to transport using traditional services such as PAN AM or United Airlines. So our current plan is to ship them to a place called Tasmania (the only place that the NBN is currently in full swing - 40°50'31.11"S - 145° 7'32.85"E) and then use the Alcatel technology shown in the clip above to move them to our new farm - http://maps.google.com/maps?q=40.778547+-73.966897 I did note with interest some comments made by other posters of the size of the US v's HongKong or Korea. I'd like to draw those posters attention to the NBN project with a goal of 93% FTTH in a country with a land mass of what compared to the USA and a population of what? While we're comparing a few stats, .nz has just about finished it's fttn roll out which targeted 80% of homes with 10/1 DSL services but has managed to deliver 84% (60% of that will be in range of 60/30 VDSL2) and is now working on it's FTTH roll out to 75% of homes with a population of 4 million people. However I can see some validity in some of the points raised by list members.... http://maps.google.com/maps/place?ftid=0x6d318966e837fd75:0xa45e7599497ba9d9&q=31+Acheson+Avenue,+Mairehau,+Canterbury,+New+Zealand&hl=en&sll=-43.500758,172.65518&sspn=0.006295,0.006295&ie=UTF8&ll=-43.496036,172.648044&spn=0,0&z=16 At my New Zealand farm, I only have a choice of 3 fibre, 2 tp, 1 cable (HFC) and 3 mobile broadband providers (with out counting WISP's) in a city of ~360,000 people. I concur that fibre is currently expensive as the best quote I've been able to get so far is $NZD1,100 a month for a 30mbit feed, which is why our local community is working on a WISP solution to connect ~580 homes to eventually deliver better capacity in our local community (low socio-economic, high crime area). I guess the point of my posts today are: * Stop winging about crap and just get on and build your own local solutions using help from the global friendly army of guys out there willing to lend a hand - that's what I'm doing and I know it's what many on this list are also doing every day. * Stop expecting the same services in rural areas that are in cities - the idea that I can set up a farm in Central Park just so people in offices can see cows while they trade stocks is just stupid, good luck trying to park a combine in any of your parking buildings. * The rural area has any amount of cash - they just don't see need to spend it on getting connected. * .us is getting left behind the rest of the world - I follow NA Nog quite a bit, and often just close the window in amazement. In closing I'd like to add that I'm 40 years old. I was born 12 months after the USA landing the first man on the moon. I grew up in ore of Neil Armstrong and the technical achievements of the Americans. Russia were the bad guys, at 11 years of age I got my first computer, at ~20 years of age I was inspired by Bill Gates and was devoted to 'the Microsoft Way' for a decade or more as a successful Visual Basic programmer - 'go the good old USA'?... Today I work with open source solutions from around the globe, having lost favour with Microsoft a decade ago, my current toy is a Mikrotik router (something I know many of you on list are also playing with more and more) and my inspiration is a guy called Simon Hackett from an ISP in Australia (with 250,000 customers and 450 staff) and Michael Mallone from another Australian ISP who started his company in his car shed and is now the number two DSL telco in less than 25 years. I could go on... but I'm sure I'm already on enough plonk lists now ;) Farmer Don -- Don Gould 31 Acheson Ave Mairehau Christchurch, New Zealand Ph: + 64 3 348 7235 Mobile: + 64 21 114 0699
On 6/11/2011 1:59 AM, Don Gould wrote:
Your responses clearly demonstrate by asking a few simple questions, and allowing those with a few clues to be creative, that there are any number of ways to get things done if you really want to.... perhaps this is a new concept for people in rural America, I don't know....
Mostly, I've just ignored this, since it wasn't really contributing to a solution for anything I could see, and wasn't finding it as amusing to read as the author did to write. This statement, however, needs a bit of changing, sir. I'd say that "people in rural America" (many of whom are my neighbors) are adept at making do, and very clever at finding solutions to the problems that the author of this piece did not. Please note that the author seems to be yet another transplanted city boy, and as such, might not have been aware of how to solve this problem quickly, and in the most expedient manner, but that does not mean you should lump rural America in one large bucket... I should also point out that the author of the article isn't even *in* a rural setting. Contrary to popular belief, living in a small town is not rural. I've lived 5 five miles out of town, and we barely considered that rural. We had neighbors less than a quarter mile walk away. In addition (since my annoyance factor seems to be set on high), I'm a bit curious as to how someone living in New Zealand is so concerned with broadband access in the US.
On 12/06/2011 1:42 a.m., Lynda wrote:
Mostly, I've just ignored this,
As do I with most treads on this list. However I found the link in the OP's post offensive on so many different levels that I choose to put some comment in with a great deal of subtly and hopefully a little humour. Clearly, judging by the off list comments I got, some people got it and some people didn't. I'm not sure which comment in the OPs link I found most offensive, but the suggestion that most folk in small rural American towns are drug dealers and addicts was up there with the suggest that the entire reason for poor broadband in USA is the sole fault of AT&T. Perhaps that's not what the article was saying. However it is the impression I took from what I read, which is what compelled me to comment. I confess that I didn't even read the entire article... by the time I got though reason 2, I was already offended enough.
since it wasn't really contributing to a solution for anything I could see, and wasn't finding it as amusing to read as the author did to write. This statement, however, needs a bit of changing, sir.
I am sorry the humour was lost on you. :) I did change the subject heading on purpose, specifically so people, who weren't interested in the obvious direction of the thread, could simply ignore it.
I'd say that "people in rural America" (many of whom are my neighbors) are adept at making do, and very clever at finding solutions to the problems that the author of this piece did not.
Agreed. As I come from a country that has an extremely large rural economic component and is as far from market as we are, I very much understand the need to adept and make do.
Please note that the author seems to be yet another transplanted city boy, and as such, might not have been aware of how to solve this problem quickly, and in the most expedient manner, but that does not mean you should lump rural America in one large bucket...
No it does not mean you should lump rural people in any bucket, being the whole point, of my first post, by suggesting that I should get help with setting up a farm in the centre of down town Manhattan, from the list. Again, it's up there with the suggestion that the only way to get broadband in rural America is to wait until one of your drugged out neighbours dies from an over dose and you can then take over the free port on the DSLAM.
I should also point out that the author of the article isn't even *in* a rural setting. Contrary to popular belief, living in a small town is not rural. I've lived 5 five miles out of town, and we barely considered that rural. We had neighbors less than a quarter mile walk away.
I've lived in a country where it take 3 hours to drive to your next closes neighbour, while in my own country we call a town rural when it has 3,000 people in it and the housing density is not far off the urban suburb I live in today - at which point we seem to currently consider they don't need ftth and 5mbit's of contended mobile broadband is more than enough.
In addition (since my annoyance factor seems to be set on high), I'm a bit curious as to how someone living in New Zealand is so concerned with broadband access in the US.
I'm interested in broadband access around the world, not just the USA. New Zealand culture is very influenced by the United States. The United States is a large trading partner from our point of view. What you do in the USA has global impact. For example if the USA says it's ok for rural folk not to have decent broadband then out countries around the world, such as my own, point to the USA as a point of reference. Same if you decide that every farmer must have 100Gbe connections. D
participants (48)
-
-Hammer- -
Barry Shein -
Blake Dunlap -
Chris Adams -
Christopher J. Pilkington -
Christopher Pilkington
-
Dave CROCKER -
David Conrad -
Don Gould -
Erik Amundson -
Eugen Leitl -
Eugeniu Patrascu -
Everett, Thomas E. -
Greg Ihnen -
Jacob Broussard -
Jared Mauch -
Jay Ashworth -
Jeff Kell -
Jeffrey S. Young -
Jeroen van Aart -
Joe Greco -
Joel Jaeggli -
Joly MacFie -
Jon Lewis -
Jorge Amodio -
Kenneth M. Chipps Ph.D. -
Kyle Creyts -
Landon Stewart -
Lynda -
Mark Radabaugh -
Matthew Palmer -
Max Pierson -
Michael K. Smith - Adhost -
Michael Painter -
mikea -
Murphy, Jay, DOH -
Nathan Eisenberg -
Owen DeLong -
Randy Bush -
Ricardo Ferreira -
Robert Bonomi -
Roy -
Scott Brim -
Seth Mattinen -
Steven Bellovin -
TJ -
TR Shaw -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu