looks like Americans are not the only ones facing bandwidth caps

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons

Originally posted by: destrekor
do people not realize the extreme difference in land size between the US and most of the world. Russia, even if it were in a similar position of wealth as the US, would be on the same level as the US for broadband. Japan is tiny, the European countries are also small in comparison to the US. It's tough stringing expensive communication systems across the US to deliver that kind of bandwidth, and is partly why bandwidth is expensive at the moment, because those profits help fund the cost of communications upgrades to increase speeds.

+

Land size is not a factor in fiber rollout. Verizon has been doing it and it hasn't bankrupted the company like lame corporate propagandist were squawking it would. There is no reason Chicago, New York, Los Angeles or any big city can't be wired up with fiber.

It's just greedy cable and telephony companies want to keep milking their cash cow as long as they can.

Land size and subscriber density has EVERYTHING to do with it. Quite simply it costs more money the farther you go and that is a fact. The optics cost more, the amplifiers, the equipment to drive it. It is much easier when you have more people using that piece of equipment (subscriber density per route mile of fiber).

Also, chicago, new york and LA have more fiber than they know what to do with as they were the original exchange points for the internet.

So stop with the "greedy companies" - go look at verizons capital outlay for all the fiber. It's a gamble they took and haven't recovered the money yet but they most likely will. So let's deal in facts and not speculation. The primary #1 reason for japan's is subscriber density and distance. Couple that with a single gubment subsidized very NEW infrastructure and it isn't difficult to see why it is that way.

 

[buck]

Time to move.

 

[hiromizu]

Why can't we just get wireless access to Japan's faster connection? It will probably cost only a few thousand dollars. Sign up for a couple of services there and wire up some routers and bam. Done.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Quite simply it costs more money the farther you go and that is a fact.

I'm not claiming that you are wrong about this statement, but could you provide some documentation to prove that the farther the packets of data need to travel the more expensive it gets? I have heard mixed opinions on this matter and I would like to get the story straight.

 

[Vehemence]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
930GB?! What are they doing with all that bandwidth? I didn't realize that much hentai existed.

Haven't you heard of live action hentai...in HD!!!

wat

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: dNor

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
930GB?! What are they doing with all that bandwidth? I didn't realize that much hentai existed.

Haven't you heard of live action hentai...in HD!!!

wat

here

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: dNor

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
930GB?! What are they doing with all that bandwidth? I didn't realize that much hentai existed.

Haven't you heard of live action hentai...in HD!!!

wat

yes, hentai movie based on anime based on manga. In HD.

 

[yhelothar]

I can't even upload 30GB a day with my shitty 3mbps/768kbps dsl connection.
Unless you're doing some major uploading of large videos/warez, it's hard to upload 30gigs anyways.

 

[WraithETC]

Streaming underage hentai beyond 1080p with 7.1 surround sound is no laughing manner.

 

[uhohs]

if i had a 100Mbps connection that upload cap would be a problem.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Now I'm really curious about how much they are paying for disk space. I'm guessing that we are getting reamed when it comes to that also. Everyone there must have a freaking SAN/NAS with a minimum 5TB RAID to store all of that.

 

[uhohs]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Now I'm really curious about how much they are paying for disk space. I'm guessing that we are getting reamed when it comes to that also. Everyone there must have a freaking SAN/NAS with a minimum 5TB RAID to store all of that.

nope, hard drives cost as much or more over there. usually more.

 

[13Gigatons]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons

Originally posted by: destrekor
do people not realize the extreme difference in land size between the US and most of the world. Russia, even if it were in a similar position of wealth as the US, would be on the same level as the US for broadband. Japan is tiny, the European countries are also small in comparison to the US. It's tough stringing expensive communication systems across the US to deliver that kind of bandwidth, and is partly why bandwidth is expensive at the moment, because those profits help fund the cost of communications upgrades to increase speeds.

+

Land size is not a factor in fiber rollout. Verizon has been doing it and it hasn't bankrupted the company like lame corporate propagandist were squawking it would. There is no reason Chicago, New York, Los Angeles or any big city can't be wired up with fiber.

It's just greedy cable and telephony companies want to keep milking their cash cow as long as they can.

Land size and subscriber density has EVERYTHING to do with it. Quite simply it costs more money the farther you go and that is a fact. The optics cost more, the amplifiers, the equipment to drive it. It is much easier when you have more people using that piece of equipment (subscriber density per route mile of fiber).

Also, chicago, new york and LA have more fiber than they know what to do with as they were the original exchange points for the internet.

So stop with the "greedy companies" - go look at verizons capital outlay for all the fiber. It's a gamble they took and haven't recovered the money yet but they most likely will. So let's deal in facts and not speculation. The primary #1 reason for japan's is subscriber density and distance. Couple that with a single gubment subsidized very NEW infrastructure and it isn't difficult to see why it is that way.

You proved the point that land size doesn't matter when you say that Chicago, NY and LA already have a ton of fiber, now all they need to do is wiring everyone's home with fiber instead of coax and copper.

Fiber will last a long time and doesn't require as much maintenance. It also has nearly limitless bandwidth. The telcoms are dragging their feet because they want to milk the copper cow as long as possible.

 

[spidey07]

I give up. You refuse to accept fact and have no idea what you are talking about. That much is apparent.

Have you looked at those profit margins and capital expenditure for passive optical networks yet? And by "milk the cow" you must be talking about removing equipment that isn't fully depreciated yet which no sane company would want to do. The farther you go, with less density the more expensive it is.

 

[Evadman]

930 GB a month upload? I do that in a week according to iometer.

 

[scttgrd]

Originally posted by: spidey07
I give up. You refuse to accept fact and have no idea what you are talking about. That much is apparent.

Have you looked at those profit margins and capital expenditure for passive optical networks yet? And by "milk the cow" you must be talking about removing equipment that isn't fully depreciated yet which no sane company would want to do. The farther you go, with less density the more expensive it is.

I'd like to know what they have done with the Billions, yes Billions of tax breaks and subsidies the industry has recieved to rollout all this expensive fiber we are still waiting for?

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: uhohs

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Now I'm really curious about how much they are paying for disk space. I'm guessing that we are getting reamed when it comes to that also. Everyone there must have a freaking SAN/NAS with a minimum 5TB RAID to store all of that.

nope, hard drives cost as much or more over there. usually more.

With 100Mb internet, it's not like you really need to store anything locally. All of Japan is basically a big NAS. :Q

As far as US network capacity, I can't remember what it's called, but I think there's some parallel to Moore's Law for fiber optic cables. Current fiber probably has more than enough capacity for our needs in the near future, and supposedly there's a lot of dark fiber out there not even being used. The problem is bringing it to everybody's doorstep. Maybe wireless technologies will be able to alleviate the costs of last-mile deployment. Next-gen cell phone technology is supposed to offer up to 100Mbps I believe.

 

[frostedflakes]

EDIT: Double post

 

[Ballatician]

Originally posted by: spidey07
I give up. You refuse to accept fact and have no idea what you are talking about. That much is apparent.

Have you looked at those profit margins and capital expenditure for passive optical networks yet? And by "milk the cow" you must be talking about removing equipment that isn't fully depreciated yet which no sane company would want to do. The farther you go, with less density the more expensive it is.

Exactly and they don't want to do it because it isn't the most cost efficient thing to do. It's all driven by the highest profit margin possible not greatest level of service unfortunately.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: Ballatician

Originally posted by: spidey07
I give up. You refuse to accept fact and have no idea what you are talking about. That much is apparent.

Have you looked at those profit margins and capital expenditure for passive optical networks yet? And by "milk the cow" you must be talking about removing equipment that isn't fully depreciated yet which no sane company would want to do. The farther you go, with less density the more expensive it is.

Exactly and they don't want to do it because it isn't the most cost efficient thing to do. It's all driven by the highest profit margin possible not greatest level of service unfortunately.

Their job is to increase profits and keep stockholders happy. You can't really blame them for their wanting to squeeze as much as they can out of current infrastructure.

The only thing that annoys me is the monopolistic business practices in certain areas. In the name of fairness, FCC really should put a stop to this. Open the market up a bit and let capitalism take over. This would force cablecos and telcos to sink some money into the network to remain competitive. Verizon has been doing a great job of keeping the cable companies on their toes with FiOS. It was a big gamble for them, but it needed to be done, and as a tech geek I'm thankful they decided to step up to the plate. So far it seems to have been pretty successful.

 

[13Gigatons]

Originally posted by: spidey07
I give up. You refuse to accept fact and have no idea what you are talking about. That much is apparent.

Have you looked at those profit margins and capital expenditure for passive optical networks yet? And by "milk the cow" you must be talking about removing equipment that isn't fully depreciated yet which no sane company would want to do. The farther you go, with less density the more expensive it is.

Let's take an example of AT$T, they are spending Billions to build a last mile network with VDSL. This requires big bulky boxes sitting on front lawns and parkways. They are spending time, money and labor to accomplish this today.

To make matters worse they are trying to send HDTV down it and only offering 10/1 internet access. The HDTV looks terrible and the 10/1 access is overpriced. The cost is expensive at $139 a month for TV and 10/1 so not many are signing up.

Wouldn't it better for AT$T to build a fiber network now like Verizon is doing that will last for decades?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons

Originally posted by: spidey07
I give up. You refuse to accept fact and have no idea what you are talking about. That much is apparent.

Have you looked at those profit margins and capital expenditure for passive optical networks yet? And by "milk the cow" you must be talking about removing equipment that isn't fully depreciated yet which no sane company would want to do. The farther you go, with less density the more expensive it is.

Let's take an example of AT$T, they are spending Billions to build a last mile network with VDSL. This requires big bulky boxes sitting on front lawns and parkways. They are spending time, money and labor to accomplish this today.

To make matters worse they are trying to send HDTV down it and only offering 10/1 internet access. The HDTV looks terrible and the 10/1 access is overpriced. The cost is expensive at $139 a month for TV and 10/1 so not many are signing up.

Wouldn't it better for AT$T to build a fiber network now like Verizon is doing that will last for decades?

I consider AT&T's move "not a good idea". It's always been the last mile, verizon chose to go with a much more expensive solution on the front end with hopes of greater return later on. They took a gamble and it's one that appears will pay off big time as they are losing money on it at the moment but will make it later.

What you're failing to get is both have very large fiber networks, it's reaching out over distance from that network that costs so much. This is where the distance/density comes into play. Verizon chose much higher front end costs in hopes of greater returns. AT&T wanted to get the most out of already installed gear/copper.

It's a whole lot easier to put in a new network than try to throw away capital investments already made. So they're not trying to "milk the cow", they trying to get a return on the capital. It's all bean counting anyway.

 

[sjwaste]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: Ballatician

Originally posted by: spidey07
I give up. You refuse to accept fact and have no idea what you are talking about. That much is apparent.

Have you looked at those profit margins and capital expenditure for passive optical networks yet? And by "milk the cow" you must be talking about removing equipment that isn't fully depreciated yet which no sane company would want to do. The farther you go, with less density the more expensive it is.

Exactly and they don't want to do it because it isn't the most cost efficient thing to do. It's all driven by the highest profit margin possible not greatest level of service unfortunately.

Their job is to increase profits and keep stockholders happy. You can't really blame them for their wanting to squeeze as much as they can out of current infrastructure.

The only thing that annoys me is the monopolistic business practices in certain areas. In the name of fairness, FCC really should put a stop to this. Open the market up a bit and let capitalism take over. This would force cablecos and telcos to sink some money into the network to remain competitive. Verizon has been doing a great job of keeping the cable companies on their toes with FiOS. It was a big gamble for them, but it needed to be done, and as a tech geek I'm thankful they decided to step up to the plate. So far it seems to have been pretty successful.

You'd be surprised. We have a recent duopoly here in parts of Northern VA. There was Comcast for bundled internet and TV, and now there's Verizon Fios. When you add up the numbers on the monthly packages, I'll be damned if they're not nearly identical. The new player can drum up enough business just by absorbing people dissatisfied with the incumbent without charging any less, and that's exactly what's going on.

We're close to buying a house that has Fios available. I might go for it, but not for any good reason other than to try a company that isn't Comcast. Costs exactly the same

 

[sjwaste]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons

Originally posted by: spidey07
I give up. You refuse to accept fact and have no idea what you are talking about. That much is apparent.

Have you looked at those profit margins and capital expenditure for passive optical networks yet? And by "milk the cow" you must be talking about removing equipment that isn't fully depreciated yet which no sane company would want to do. The farther you go, with less density the more expensive it is.

Let's take an example of AT$T, they are spending Billions to build a last mile network with VDSL. This requires big bulky boxes sitting on front lawns and parkways. They are spending time, money and labor to accomplish this today.

To make matters worse they are trying to send HDTV down it and only offering 10/1 internet access. The HDTV looks terrible and the 10/1 access is overpriced. The cost is expensive at $139 a month for TV and 10/1 so not many are signing up.

Wouldn't it better for AT$T to build a fiber network now like Verizon is doing that will last for decades?

I consider AT&T's move "not a good idea". It's always been the last mile, verizon chose to go with a much more expensive solution on the front end with hopes of greater return later on. They took a gamble and it's one that appears will pay off big time as they are losing money on it at the moment but will make it later.

What you're failing to get is both have very large fiber networks, it's reaching out over distance from that network that costs so much. This is where the distance/density comes into play. Verizon chose much higher front end costs in hopes of greater returns. AT&T wanted to get the most out of already installed gear/copper.

It's a whole lot easier to put in a new network than try to throw away capital investments already made. So they're not trying to "milk the cow", they trying to get a return on the capital. It's all bean counting anyway.

Do you mean to tell me that running a bundle over a 10 mile length is more cost effective if there are 100,000 residents along that vs in a rural area where there are 25? Insanity! I don't believe you!

Well there, now I've summed up this thread nicely

/economic sarcasm

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: sjwaste

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: Ballatician

Originally posted by: spidey07
I give up. You refuse to accept fact and have no idea what you are talking about. That much is apparent.

Have you looked at those profit margins and capital expenditure for passive optical networks yet? And by "milk the cow" you must be talking about removing equipment that isn't fully depreciated yet which no sane company would want to do. The farther you go, with less density the more expensive it is.

Exactly and they don't want to do it because it isn't the most cost efficient thing to do. It's all driven by the highest profit margin possible not greatest level of service unfortunately.

Their job is to increase profits and keep stockholders happy. You can't really blame them for their wanting to squeeze as much as they can out of current infrastructure.

The only thing that annoys me is the monopolistic business practices in certain areas. In the name of fairness, FCC really should put a stop to this. Open the market up a bit and let capitalism take over. This would force cablecos and telcos to sink some money into the network to remain competitive. Verizon has been doing a great job of keeping the cable companies on their toes with FiOS. It was a big gamble for them, but it needed to be done, and as a tech geek I'm thankful they decided to step up to the plate. So far it seems to have been pretty successful.

You'd be surprised. We have a recent duopoly here in parts of Northern VA. There was Comcast for bundled internet and TV, and now there's Verizon Fios. When you add up the numbers on the monthly packages, I'll be damned if they're not nearly identical. The new player can drum up enough business just by absorbing people dissatisfied with the incumbent without charging any less, and that's exactly what's going on.

We're close to buying a house that has Fios available. I might go for it, but not for any good reason other than to try a company that isn't Comcast. Costs exactly the same

The FiOS internet service is probably better than the cable company's, though. Even if advertised speeds are the same, I'm willing to bet that FiOS offers superior service, especially during peak hours.

Also, I think Verizon broadcasts at higher bitrates than cable, meaning better video quality.

Gotta love FTTP.