# Why is American internet so slow?



## ClosedCaption

Why is American internet so slow? - The Week



> The country that literally invented the internet is now behind Estonia in terms of download speeds
> 
> A
> ccording to a recent study by Ookla Speedtest, the U.S. ranks a shocking 31st in the world in terms of average download speeds. The leaders in the world are Hong Kong at 72.49 Mbps and Singapore on 58.84 Mbps. And America? Averaging speeds of 20.77 Mbps, it falls behind countries like Estonia, Hungary, Slovakia, and Uruguay.
> 
> Its upload speeds are even worse. Globally, the U.S. ranks 42nd with an average upload speed of 6.31 Mbps, behind Lesotho, Belarus, Slovenia, and other countries you only hear mentioned on Jeopardy.
> 
> So how did America fall behind? How did the country that literally invented the internet  and the home to world-leading tech companies such as Apple, Microsoft, Netflix, Facebook, Google, and Cisco  fall behind so many others in download speeds?
> 
> Susan Crawford argues that "huge telecommunication companies" such as Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon, and AT&T have "divided up markets and put themselves in a position where they're subject to no competition."
> 
> *How? The 1996 Telecommunications Act  which was meant to foster competition  allowed cable companies and telecoms companies to simply divide markets and merge their way to monopoly, allowing them to charge customers higher and higher prices without the kind of investment in internet infrastructure, especially in next-generation fiber optic connections, that is ongoing in other countries. Fiber optic connections offer a particularly compelling example. While expensive to build, they offer faster and smoother connections than traditional copper wire connections. But Verizon stopped building out fiber optic infrastructure in 2010  citing high costs  just as other countries were getting to work.*
> 
> Crawford told the BBC:
> 
> *We deregulated high-speed internet access 10 years ago and since then we've seen enormous consolidation and monopolies Left to their own devices, companies that supply internet access will charge high prices, because they face neither competition nor oversight. [BBC]*
> 
> If a market becomes a monopoly, there's often nothing whatever to force monopolists to invest in infrastructure or improve their service. *Of course, in the few places where a new competitor like Google Fiber has appeared, telecoms companies have been spooked and forced to cut prices and improve service in response to the new competition.* But that isn't happening everywhere. It's very expensive for a new competitor to come into a market, like telecommunications, that has very high barriers to entry. Laying copper wire or fiber optic cable is expensive, and if the incumbent companies won't grant new competitors access to their infrastructure, then the free market forces of competition don't work and infrastructure stagnates, even as consumer anger and desire for competition rises due to poor service.




I get tired of being right.  This is why American internet access sucks because there isnt any competition and the companies dont give a shit.  Since they have it locked down they jack up the prices and keep services wack and give you the finger


----------



## Spiderman

All that NSA snooping eats up bandwidth.


----------



## ClosedCaption

Spiderman said:


> All that NSA snooping eats up bandwidth.



The lack of competition is the problem


----------



## Edgetho

You're wrong.  But...  You're a dimocrap, which means you're stupid.

Ask yourself why Europe uses 220 Volt systems and we use 110.

If you can answer that, you'll have the answer to our slower internet.

XXXXX


----------



## pvsi

ClosedCaption said:


> Why is American internet so slow? - The Week
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The country that literally invented the internet is now behind Estonia in terms of download speeds
> 
> A
> ccording to a recent study by Ookla Speedtest, the U.S. ranks a shocking 31st in the world in terms of average download speeds.
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of Americans love to download porn which slows down internet for others
> 
> *XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX*
Click to expand...


----------



## ClosedCaption

Edgetho said:


> You're wrong.  But...  You're a dimocrap, which means you're stupid.
> 
> *Ask yourself why Europe uses 220 Volt systems and we use 110.
> 
> If you can answer that, you'll have the answer to our slower internet.*
> 
> I ain't gonna hold my breath.  You are, afterall, a stupid fucking dimocrap



Because volts?    Ok Buttmunch...


XXXXXXX


----------



## longknife

I don't know about the rest of you but I get totally frustrated with the slowness of browsing the internet on forums such as this. Whether it's Firefox, or Opera, or Chrome, that stupid little circle at the top keeps going and nothing happens.

It may be because I'm still using Vista. 

[Just counted 3.5 seconds to go from quick reply to advanced]


----------



## Iceweasel

longknife said:


> I don't know about the rest of you but I get totally frustrated with the slowness of browsing the internet on forums such as this. Whether it's Firefox, or Opera, or Chrome, that stupid little circle at the top keeps going and nothing happens.
> 
> It may be because I'm still using Vista.
> 
> [Just counted 3.5 seconds to go from quick reply to advanced]


It was almost instant for me. I am using an 8 year old computer w/ 2gigs of memory and the slowest internet cable speed Comcast has. I think the big difference is the OS. I'm on Linux Debian and using Iceweasel (Firefox). Chromium runs about the same.


----------



## DiamondDave

Coming from someone in the business.. the article, like the OP, is complete horse shit


----------



## RDD_1210

DiamondDave said:


> Coming from someone in the business.. the article, like the OP, is complete horse shit



As shown by your plethora of evidence.


----------



## RDD_1210

Edgetho said:


> You're wrong.  But...  You're a dimocrap, which means you're stupid.
> 
> Ask yourself why Europe uses 220 Volt systems and we use 110.
> 
> If you can answer that, you'll have the answer to our slower internet.
> 
> I ain't gonna hold my breath.  You are, afterall, a stupid fucking dimocrap



Holy fuck, did you just say voltage???? Really???

Oh and by the way, I saw your original post where you blamed it on the number of computers per capita. Why did you delete that post? Hahahahaha


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

Interesting that the conservative posters here are arguing in favor of monopolies. You have a leftist OP making the Capitalist argument for more competition and the right wingers rebuffing him.  I must have fallen into the Bizarro World


----------



## ClosedCaption

RDD_1210 said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coming from someone in the business.. the article, like the OP, is complete horse shit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As shown by your plethora of evidence.
Click to expand...


Right.


----------



## RDD_1210

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Interesting that the conservative posters here are arguing in favor of monopolies.



It's the same thing around watching conservatives argue against Net Neutrality. It doesn't make sense.


----------



## Jarhead

ClosedCaption said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> All that NSA snooping eats up bandwidth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lack of competition is the problem
Click to expand...


Lack of competition?

Here in NY I am bombarded daily by salespeople for a multitude of internet carriers.


----------



## Iceweasel

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Interesting that the conservative posters here are arguing in favor of monopolies. You have a leftist OP making the Capitalist argument for more competition and the right wingers rebuffing him.  I must have fallen into the Bizarro World


Who made that argument?


----------



## TakeAStepBack

ClosedCaption said:


> Why is American internet so slow? - The Week
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The country that literally invented the internet is now behind Estonia in terms of download speeds
> 
> A
> ccording to a recent study by Ookla Speedtest, the U.S. ranks a shocking 31st in the world in terms of average download speeds. The leaders in the world are Hong Kong at 72.49 Mbps and Singapore on 58.84 Mbps. And America? Averaging speeds of 20.77 Mbps, it falls behind countries like Estonia, Hungary, Slovakia, and Uruguay.
> 
> Its upload speeds are even worse. Globally, the U.S. ranks 42nd with an average upload speed of 6.31 Mbps, behind Lesotho, Belarus, Slovenia, and other countries you only hear mentioned on Jeopardy.
> 
> So how did America fall behind? How did the country that literally invented the internet  and the home to world-leading tech companies such as Apple, Microsoft, Netflix, Facebook, Google, and Cisco  fall behind so many others in download speeds?
> 
> Susan Crawford argues that "huge telecommunication companies" such as Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon, and AT&T have "divided up markets and put themselves in a position where they're subject to no competition."
> 
> *How? The 1996 Telecommunications Act  which was meant to foster competition  allowed cable companies and telecoms companies to simply divide markets and merge their way to monopoly, allowing them to charge customers higher and higher prices without the kind of investment in internet infrastructure, especially in next-generation fiber optic connections, that is ongoing in other countries. Fiber optic connections offer a particularly compelling example. While expensive to build, they offer faster and smoother connections than traditional copper wire connections. But Verizon stopped building out fiber optic infrastructure in 2010  citing high costs  just as other countries were getting to work.*
> 
> Crawford told the BBC:
> 
> *We deregulated high-speed internet access 10 years ago and since then we've seen enormous consolidation and monopolies Left to their own devices, companies that supply internet access will charge high prices, because they face neither competition nor oversight. [BBC]*
> 
> If a market becomes a monopoly, there's often nothing whatever to force monopolists to invest in infrastructure or improve their service. *Of course, in the few places where a new competitor like Google Fiber has appeared, telecoms companies have been spooked and forced to cut prices and improve service in response to the new competition.* But that isn't happening everywhere. It's very expensive for a new competitor to come into a market, like telecommunications, that has very high barriers to entry. Laying copper wire or fiber optic cable is expensive, and if the incumbent companies won't grant new competitors access to their infrastructure, then the free market forces of competition don't work and infrastructure stagnates, even as consumer anger and desire for competition rises due to poor service.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get tired of being right.  This is why American internet access sucks because there isnt any competition and the companies dont give a shit.  Since they have it locked down they jack up the prices and keep services wack and give you the finger
Click to expand...


But you think giving government a monopoly on healthcare will lead to price decreaes and better service I bet.  



The government created that situation. And not all access points suck, just a lot of them.


----------



## Jarhead

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Interesting that the conservative posters here are arguing in favor of monopolies. You have a leftist OP making the Capitalist argument for more competition and the right wingers rebuffing him.  I must have fallen into the Bizarro World



Is internet access deemed a monopoly?

Right off the top of my head I can get access via TWC, VZ and Optimum....and I know there are others.


----------



## ClosedCaption

Jarhead said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> All that NSA snooping eats up bandwidth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lack of competition is the problem
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lack of competition?
> 
> Here in NY I am bombarded daily by salespeople for a multitude of internet carriers.
Click to expand...


Sure you are.  I bet you're tripping over them its so many


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Interesting that the conservative posters here are arguing in favor of monopolies. You have a leftist OP making the Capitalist argument for more competition and the right wingers rebuffing him.  I must have fallen into the Bizarro World



Yeah, it's difficult to understand from either angle. Having CC argue for more capitalism and conservatives baulk that he's full of shit.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Jarhead said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that the conservative posters here are arguing in favor of monopolies. You have a leftist OP making the Capitalist argument for more competition and the right wingers rebuffing him.  I must have fallen into the Bizarro World
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is internet access deemed a monopoly?
> 
> Right off the top of my head I can get access via TWC, VZ and Optimum....and I know there are others.
Click to expand...


It's an oligopoly. There are only a few of providers. I'm in a major US city and I have a grand total of 3 provider optons available to me.


----------



## NYcarbineer

I remember that campaign in the nineties to pass that telecom bill.  The industry was all for it, 

telling everyone how much better it would be for consumers.  

Basic lesson:  when corporations tell you they want certain laws because they will make it better for you, the consumer,  

if you bet that they are lying, you will win much more than you lose.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

I agree.  We need more internets.


----------



## Edgetho

Jarhead said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that the conservative posters here are arguing in favor of monopolies. You have a leftist OP making the Capitalist argument for more competition and the right wingers rebuffing him.  I must have fallen into the Bizarro World
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is internet access deemed a monopoly?
> 
> Right off the top of my head I can get access via TWC, VZ and Optimum....and I know there are others.
Click to expand...


WISPs.

These idiots are pushing for the net neutrality act but are too dishonest to state it outright

They want the gubmint in charge -- Of everything.


----------



## NYcarbineer

We need a public option in this market.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

TakeAStepBack said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that the conservative posters here are arguing in favor of monopolies. You have a leftist OP making the Capitalist argument for more competition and the right wingers rebuffing him.  I must have fallen into the Bizarro World
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is internet access deemed a monopoly?
> 
> Right off the top of my head I can get access via TWC, VZ and Optimum....and I know there are others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's an oligopoly. There are only a few of providers. I'm in a major US city and I have a grand total of 3 provider optons available to me.
Click to expand...


I have one.  It's Cox. Although, technically, I might be able to get a satellite card.


----------



## WinterBorn

RDD_1210 said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong.  But...  You're a dimocrap, which means you're stupid.
> 
> Ask yourself why Europe uses 220 Volt systems and we use 110.
> 
> If you can answer that, you'll have the answer to our slower internet.
> 
> I ain't gonna hold my breath.  You are, afterall, a stupid fucking dimocrap
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Holy fuck, did you just say voltage???? Really???
> 
> Oh and by the way, I saw your original post where you blamed it on the number of computers per capita. Why did you delete that post? Hahahahaha
Click to expand...


Depending on the system your provider has, the number of users can effect the speeds.  Fortunately many areas are going to fiber optics from source to the house.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Iceweasel said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that the conservative posters here are arguing in favor of monopolies. You have a leftist OP making the Capitalist argument for more competition and the right wingers rebuffing him.  I must have fallen into the Bizarro World
> 
> 
> 
> Who made that argument?
Click to expand...


  Nobody....she just thinks it sounds imperialistic.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

NYcarbineer said:


> We need a public option in this market.



I knew someone would say that. So you want the government to step in and fix the mess they created by writing legislation favorable to large companies, causing a complete loss of competition and a barrier system almost impentrable? 

Some of you are kookoo.
If I was tasks to change out your toilet and make sure all your pressure valves were tightened properly and I blew out all your piping and destroyed your house, would you really want me to fix it? 

That sounds like insanity.


----------



## ClosedCaption

Edge is going to say to unkink your internet wire to let the internet flow quicker next


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Edgetho said:


> You're wrong.  But...  You're a dimocrap, which means you're stupid.
> 
> *Ask yourself why Europe uses 220 Volt systems and we use 110.*
> If you can answer that, you'll have the answer to our slower internet.
> 
> I ain't gonna hold my breath.  You are, afterall, a stupid fucking dimocrap



Are you serious?


----------



## TakeAStepBack

ClosedCaption said:


> Edge is going to say to unkink your internet wire to let the internet flow quicker next



It sounds more like he's going to advise you to install an L6 20 220v replacement from 110 for your computer modem.


----------



## RDD_1210

Edge, please tell us more about how the difference in voltage is what causes the slower speeds. I'm fascinated.


----------



## Iceweasel

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that the conservative posters here are arguing in favor of monopolies. You have a leftist OP making the Capitalist argument for more competition and the right wingers rebuffing him.  I must have fallen into the Bizarro World
> 
> 
> 
> Who made that argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody....she just thinks it sounds imperialistic.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't know any conservatives that want less options. There's also Dish and DirecTV, which may be the way of the future.


----------



## Edgetho

TakeAStepBack said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong.  But...  You're a dimocrap, which means you're stupid.
> 
> *Ask yourself why Europe uses 220 Volt systems and we use 110.*
> If you can answer that, you'll have the answer to our slower internet.
> 
> I ain't gonna hold my breath.  You are, afterall, a stupid fucking dimocrap
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you serious?
Click to expand...


Yes.

Are you?


----------



## RDD_1210

Edgetho said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong.  But...  You're a dimocrap, which means you're stupid.
> 
> *Ask yourself why Europe uses 220 Volt systems and we use 110.*
> If you can answer that, you'll have the answer to our slower internet.
> 
> I ain't gonna hold my breath.  You are, afterall, a stupid fucking dimocrap
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you serious?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Are you?
Click to expand...


Bwahahahahahaha, this might be the post of the year!


----------



## Plasmaball

Edgetho said:


> You're wrong.  But...  You're a dimocrap, which means you're stupid.
> 
> Ask yourself why Europe uses 220 Volt systems and we use 110.
> 
> If you can answer that, you'll have the answer to our slower internet.
> 
> I ain't gonna hold my breath.  You are, afterall, a stupid fucking dimocrap



great the retard answer


----------



## buckeye45_73

ClosedCaption said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> All that NSA snooping eats up bandwidth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lack of competition is the problem
Click to expand...

 

 WAAAIIIIIT A second. There are several competitors, but what's funny is I thought you would want govt control, you want competition? multiple PRIVATE companies, no way. Only the Government can do this!


 btw my internet is just fine, I can play any game, post, watch videos, all at the same time.


----------



## SmedlyButler

DiamondDave said:


> Coming from someone in the business.. the article, like the OP, is complete horse shit



Are you using the same shovel here that you use for the cable trenches?

Seriously, it's a worthy subject, have any substantive input? Especially if you are "in the business".


----------



## SmedlyButler

RDD_1210 said:


> Edge, please tell us more about how the difference in voltage is what causes the slower speeds. I'm fascinated.



Not sure tho. I second your request for a clarification. I'm sure it'll be edifying.


----------



## boedicca

Perhaps it would be faster of Obama's NSA weren't tracking everything we do on the interwebs.

Just sayin'.


----------



## GISMYS

Nsa computers take time to record your internet use!!!


----------



## buckeye45_73

The thing about it, is the article is right about competition, but im skeptical since the op mocks that idea and thinks the govt and tons of regulation will fix most if not all problems.

As for monopoly,they are bad, cause poor service and higher prices. Conservatives like me advocate it all the time and yes its still the best way to go. And thats why we laugh at big govt vs big business, because most times theyre  o  tne same side, but deregulation is a great way to enhance the free market and if someone gets too big, then cause more competition. Remember regulation hurts the little guy, mot the rich one


----------



## Edgetho

SmedlyButler said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Edge, please tell us more about how the difference in voltage is what causes the slower speeds. I'm fascinated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure tho. I second your request for a clarification. I'm sure it'll be edifying.
Click to expand...


I never said that voltage had anything to do with the speed of the internet.

How did you people ever make it past the third grade?  Honest to God.

What I said was, 'look at why we have 110 v. Europe's 220.

Because of the evolution of electricity.

We had it first.  We had the inventors of it right here, in the US of A.

Europe soon had electricity too.  At one time, Europe and America both used 110 (120, whatever) but....

Then Tesla invented the Alternating Current.  Which changed everything.  Europe, the Germans in particular wanted to go with the 220 but with 50 Hz.

We wanted to stay with 60 Hz and 110 Volts.

Eventually...  Here it is better written than I can manage --



> Originally Europe was 120 V too, just like Japan and the US today. It has been deemed necessary to increase voltage to get more power with less losses and voltage drop from the same copper wire diameter. At the time the US also wanted to change but because of the cost involved to replace all electric appliances, they decided not to. At the time (50s-60s) the average US household already had a fridge, a washing-machine, etc., but not in Europe.
> 
> The end result is that now, the US seems not to have evolved from the 50s and 60s, and still copes with problems as light bulbs that burn out rather quickly when they are close to the transformer (too high a voltage), or just the other way round: not enough voltage at the end of the line (105 to 127 volt spread !).



Same thing with the internet.  We invented it.  We set up the infrastructure to support it YEARS before the Euro-Weenies.

When they finally got around to it, the technology had evolved to a point that they could start from scratch with cutting-edge tech where for us to start over would cause massive problems and unnecessary expense.

You people are dense.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Uhm, TCP/IP gave the ability to use the existing communications infrastructure for what became known as the internet. In other words, the communication lines, your phone lines, were the first usage. .


----------



## OnePercenter

All American internet isn't slow. In Vegas I have Cox. (150 Mbps down/45Mbps up) Privately held company vs. publicly held.

OBTW; The future is WiFi.


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

ClosedCaption said:


> Why is American internet so slow? - The Week
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get tired of being right.  This is why American internet access sucks because there isnt any competition and the companies dont give a shit.  Since they have it locked down they jack up the prices and keep services wack and give you the finger



*Yup.  Where I am there's only Comcast and Verizon.  And it's only going to get worse.*


----------



## Edgetho

OnePercenter said:


> All American internet isn't slow. In Vegas I have Cox. (150 Mbps down/45Mbps up) Privately held company vs. publicly held.
> 
> OBTW; The future is WiFi.



WISPs.  Wireless Internet Service Providers.

They've been around for a while but mostly in rural areas.

I understand they're f a s t

Then there's the density thingie.  Europe has somewhere around ten times the population density that we do.

Also, somewhere around 5% of Americans still use dial-up service...  Kinda slow.

And there's the Telephone Pole dealio.

You can't just go stringing wires and cables from telephone poles without permission.

Interesting.

Sometimes it's better to let someone else invent something, sit back and let them work the bugs out of it and then, when it's set up and running right, just use what they've perfected.

The entire world does that to us....  All the time.  Especially the Russians and the Chinese.

And the Europeans and Indians and South Americans and Asians and Martians and Arabs and Africans and......


----------



## Sunshine

I don't see the issue.  How fast do you WANT the internet to be?  Are you willing to upgrade your own equipment to make it faster.  I really can't complain about mine.  It's plenty fast.  I remember when I was in school having to go to town on Saturday to use an encyclopedia because the school I went to had burned 2 years before I started and we didn't have a library for several years, and when we did,  it was limited for a very long time.  I think we got what the other schools around wanted to discard.  With the internet all I have to do is input what I want to know about and voila the knowledge of the universe is at my fingertips.  If anyone had told me there would be such a thing as the internet when I was in 8th grade, I wouldn't have believed it.  It is more like magic than technology, IMO.  So are microwaves.  I just don't get the pissing and moaning about how slow the internet is.  Getting what I want is a matter of seconds, not minutes.


----------



## whitehall

The short answer is "AVERAGE". Everybody in Singapore has the same server probably maintained by the government but case you didn't notice the U.S. is a lot bigger than Singapore and the internet servers are varied as the terrain. Almost everyone in the U.S. has access to the internet and rural folks depend on satellite which is notoriously slow and some people still have dial up because of their phone service. When you average it out it makes the US appear to have slow internet service while the service for the majority of Americans is fast.


----------



## SmedlyButler

Edgetho said:


> SmedlyButler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Edge, please tell us more about how the difference in voltage is what causes the slower speeds. I'm fascinated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure tho. I second your request for a clarification. I'm sure it'll be edifying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said that voltage had anything to do with the speed of the internet.
> 
> How did you people ever make it past the third grade?  Honest to God.
> 
> What I said was, 'look at why we have 110 v. Europe's 220.
> 
> Because of the evolution of electricity.
> 
> We had it first.  We had the inventors of it right here, in the US of A.
> 
> Europe soon had electricity too.  At one time, Europe and America both used 110 (120, whatever) but....
> 
> Then Tesla invented the Alternating Current.  Which changed everything.  Europe, the Germans in particular wanted to go with the 220 but with 50 Hz.
> 
> We wanted to stay with 60 Hz and 110 Volts.
> 
> Eventually...  Here it is better written than I can manage --
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Europe was 120 V too, just like Japan and the US today. It has been deemed necessary to increase voltage to get more power with less losses and voltage drop from the same copper wire diameter. At the time the US also wanted to change but because of the cost involved to replace all electric appliances, they decided not to. At the time (50s-60s) the average US household already had a fridge, a washing-machine, etc., but not in Europe.
> 
> The end result is that now, the US seems not to have evolved from the 50s and 60s, and still copes with problems as light bulbs that burn out rather quickly when they are close to the transformer (too high a voltage), or just the other way round: not enough voltage at the end of the line (105 to 127 volt spread !).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same thing with the internet.  We invented it.  We set up the infrastructure to support it YEARS before the Euro-Weenies.
> 
> When they finally got around to it, the technology had evolved to a point that they could start from scratch with cutting-edge tech where for us to start over would cause massive problems and unnecessary expense.
> 
> You people are dense.
Click to expand...


I was pretty sure you weren't putting internet speed and voltage in the same basket. But your original post was a little ambiguous. Maybe one reason I didn't pick up the inference is I'm not sure the analogy is valid re: the Internet. There are no industry speed protocols or such that limit hardware as did the choice of voltage and a.c. over d.c. when designing and building infra-structure. An interesting proposal though, I'm going to research it a bit. Thanks.


----------



## DiamondDave

RDD_1210 said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coming from someone in the business.. the article, like the OP, is complete horse shit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As shown by your plethora of evidence.
Click to expand...


Dear retard.. you and your little banned OP buddy (hopefully his troll ass is banned for good) fail to realize 1 thing

The plethora of circumstances in each person' perceived feelings about internet speed..

We have the highest concentration of OC-192 backbone in the world... we also have the highest concentration of high speed lines in most all urban and suburban areas.. even in rural areas, the availability of DSL and other technologies (including satellite, 3g and 4g) is second to none... now.. take into account the propensity of people to hold on to equipment, for people to be ignorant of what is even traversing their own transmission connection, and the thought that if it is not instant, it must be slow, and you will easily see that the conclusions in the article are nothing more factual than Alice in Wonderland.. it is a bullshit article with a bullshit premise with improper scope and information to back it up... and the idiot OP is just about as idiotic...

This, written for you across a 4G connection, 50+ miles outside of DC and 15 miles from any incorporated town, while riding a train traveling over 40MPH thru a grove of trees that has not ended in miles... by an engineer who has worked in data transmission for over 23 years

So fuck you, idiot


----------



## RKMBrown

Edgetho said:


> You're wrong.  But...  You're a dimocrap, which means you're stupid.
> 
> Ask yourself why Europe uses 220 Volt systems and we use 110.
> 
> If you can answer that, you'll have the answer to our slower internet.
> 
> XXXXX



Odd... I live in the states and I have dozens of devices running on 220.  Do you live in a place where you don't have 220?


----------



## DiamondDave

Jarhead said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> All that NSA snooping eats up bandwidth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lack of competition is the problem
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lack of competition?
> 
> Here in NY I am bombarded daily by salespeople for a multitude of internet carriers.
Click to expand...


BINGO

And hey.. if the 'monopoly complainers' own or can lease rights to land spanning miles to make a fiber mesh or ring, you go ahead and lay the millions and millions of dollars for fiber for a backbone... be my guest.. more competition is a good thing

In my town alone, I have have basically 5 choices for last mile or household internet service.. companies battling for it in a town with less than 750 houses

Laughable, these little progs are


----------



## DiamondDave

Edgetho said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that the conservative posters here are arguing in favor of monopolies. You have a leftist OP making the Capitalist argument for more competition and the right wingers rebuffing him.  I must have fallen into the Bizarro World
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is internet access deemed a monopoly?
> 
> Right off the top of my head I can get access via TWC, VZ and Optimum....and I know there are others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WISPs.
> 
> These idiots are pushing for the net neutrality act but are too dishonest to state it outright
> 
> They want the gubmint in charge -- Of everything.
Click to expand...


Bingo


----------



## ogibillm

Edgetho said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that the conservative posters here are arguing in favor of monopolies. You have a leftist OP making the Capitalist argument for more competition and the right wingers rebuffing him.  I must have fallen into the Bizarro World
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is internet access deemed a monopoly?
> 
> Right off the top of my head I can get access via TWC, VZ and Optimum....and I know there are others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WISPs.
> 
> These idiots are pushing for the net neutrality act but are too dishonest to state it outright
> 
> *They want the gubmint in charge -- Of everything.*
Click to expand...


that sentence there shows you don't understand net neutrality.


----------



## Uncensored2008

longknife said:


> I don't know about the rest of you but I get totally frustrated with the slowness of browsing the internet on forums such as this. Whether it's Firefox, or Opera, or Chrome, that stupid little circle at the top keeps going and nothing happens.
> 
> It may be because I'm still using Vista.
> 
> [Just counted 3.5 seconds to go from quick reply to advanced]



Browsing depends on a great many variables. Connection speed is one of the factors. That you have Vista could be an advantage. Longhorn based systems (Vista, 7, 8) make use of graphics hardware through the DirectX API. That is, IF your machine has decent graphics hardware. The ability of the remote server to provide information is also a factor. A faster machine and more bandwidth will do little to speed USMB up, the big issue here is the servers can't meet the demand on them. Latency is another factor.

That said, our speeds in this country ARE pathetic, and there is little excuse for it. Most areas have fiber backbones and could easily serve 10X the speeds we see today. But ISP's like Charter want to bleed this in slowly, to maximize the return on their investment.


----------



## Plasmaball

OnePercenter said:


> All American internet isn't slow. In Vegas I have Cox. (150 Mbps down/45Mbps up) Privately held company vs. publicly held.
> 
> OBTW; The future is WiFi.



compared to south Korea you are on dial up.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Iceweasel said:


> It was almost instant for me. I am using an 8 year old computer w/ 2gigs of memory and the slowest internet cable speed Comcast has. I think the big difference is the OS. I'm on Linux Debian and using Iceweasel (Firefox). Chromium runs about the same.



I duel boot the machine I'm on between Windows 7 and Ubuntu. I have never seen Ubuntu responding faster. Chromium or Firefox. Windows 7 has better drivers for my GTX480, so on graphic intensive sites, I get better performance from Windows. Most of the time I can't tell the difference.

Firefox crashes, Chromium doesn't - but OS is irrelevant in that regard.


----------



## Plasmaball

DiamondDave said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lack of competition is the problem
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lack of competition?
> 
> Here in NY I am bombarded daily by salespeople for a multitude of internet carriers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BINGO
> 
> And hey.. if the 'monopoly complainers' own or can lease rights to land spanning miles to make a fiber mesh or ring, you go ahead and lay the millions and millions of dollars for fiber for a backbone... be my guest.. more competition is a good thing
> 
> In my town alone, I have have basically 5 choices for last mile or household internet service.. companies battling for it in a town with less than 750 houses
> 
> Laughable, these little progs are
Click to expand...


i have one company. 
I hope google fiber takes off and kills prices and all the rape they do. 

But no you go switch to those 5 companies, They all give you the same basic rates for the same shit ball quality


----------



## Plasmaball

DiamondDave said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is internet access deemed a monopoly?
> 
> Right off the top of my head I can get access via TWC, VZ and Optimum....and I know there are others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WISPs.
> 
> These idiots are pushing for the net neutrality act but are too dishonest to state it outright
> 
> They want the gubmint in charge -- Of everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bingo
Click to expand...


lol you are in the business and dont even get NN...lol


----------



## Uncensored2008

Jarhead said:


> Is internet access deemed a monopoly?
> 
> Right off the top of my head I can get access via TWC, VZ and Optimum....and I know there are others.



Yes, but who owns the local loop? Who has the backbone?

In my area, all roads lead to Verizon. They own the fiber backbone and everyone else is just leasing bandwidth. Time Warner can pull cable to a house, but past the CO, it's right back on Verizon.


----------



## DiamondDave

Plasmaball said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lack of competition?
> 
> Here in NY I am bombarded daily by salespeople for a multitude of internet carriers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BINGO
> 
> And hey.. if the 'monopoly complainers' own or can lease rights to land spanning miles to make a fiber mesh or ring, you go ahead and lay the millions and millions of dollars for fiber for a backbone... be my guest.. more competition is a good thing
> 
> In my town alone, I have have basically 5 choices for last mile or household internet service.. companies battling for it in a town with less than 750 houses
> 
> Laughable, these little progs are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i have one company.
> I hope google fiber takes off and kills prices and all the rape they do.
> 
> But no you go switch to those 5 companies, They all give you the same basic rates for the same shit ball quality
Click to expand...


But it's a MONOPOLY 

Not to mention I have choices between class..  I even have the choice that I have taken and having a ds3 directly to my fucking house, which I then have the option of offering to my neighbors to piggyback.. and this is paid for as a benefit in my employment in this fucking business...

I guess your McDonalds job does not come with that benefit

Funny.. I have no problems with quality.. and I could choose between several carries to handle the transmission.. my other neighbor has no problems with their comcast.. some complain about the speeds of the 2 dsl options by Verizon, but it is cheaper.. the old house about 4 miles up the road went the satellite route, download not bad, but upload sucks, but hey, HE LIVES A MILE OFF THE ROAD ON A FARM AND DOES NOT EVEN HAVE PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER...


----------



## Uncensored2008

NYcarbineer said:


> We need a public option in this market.



Great.

Who pulls the lines? Who installs the backbone? Who buys the switches?

This doesn't happen by magic.


----------



## DiamondDave

Uncensored2008 said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is internet access deemed a monopoly?
> 
> Right off the top of my head I can get access via TWC, VZ and Optimum....and I know there are others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but who owns the local loop? Who has the backbone?
> 
> In my area, all roads lead to Verizon. They own the fiber backbone and everyone else is just leasing bandwidth. Time Warner can pull cable to a house, but past the CO, it's right back on Verizon.
Click to expand...


Funny... verizon may have laid the fiber or local copper from the CO... but all other companies have access to it.. I actually buy my local high speed line access from a west coast company...

But hey, you got the cash and the land rights to lay the fiver and/or local copper... more power too ya.. go into competition... you are free to do so


----------



## Uncensored2008

RKMBrown said:


> Odd... I live in the states and I have dozens of devices running on 220.  Do you live in a place where you don't have 220?



Most of my servers run on 205. I'm in California. Our main feeds are 480, we step down to what each panel needs.


----------



## DiamondDave

Plasmaball said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> WISPs.
> 
> These idiots are pushing for the net neutrality act but are too dishonest to state it outright
> 
> They want the gubmint in charge -- Of everything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol you are in the business and dont even get NN...lol
Click to expand...


We have gone over NN ad nauseum.... and it is not about the freedom and private competition...


----------



## RKMBrown

Uncensored2008 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need a public option in this market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great.
> 
> Who pulls the lines? Who installs the backbone? Who buys the switches?
> 
> This doesn't happen by magic.
Click to expand...


American taxpayers already paid for fibre to every single home in America.  Congress let them off the hook based on some crazy idea that we would rather have wireless cell phone data plans.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060131/2021240.shtml


----------



## TakeAStepBack

DiamondDave said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is internet access deemed a monopoly?
> 
> Right off the top of my head I can get access via TWC, VZ and Optimum....and I know there are others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but who owns the local loop? Who has the backbone?
> 
> In my area, all roads lead to Verizon. They own the fiber backbone and everyone else is just leasing bandwidth. Time Warner can pull cable to a house, but past the CO, it's right back on Verizon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny... verizon may have laid the fiber or local copper from the CO... but all other companies have access to it.. I actually buy my local high speed line access from a west coast company...
> 
> But hey, you got the cash and the land rights to lay the fiver and/or local copper... more power too ya.. go into competition... you are free to do so
Click to expand...


The problem is, that it has a massive barrier to entry imposed by government. It's the same thing regarding comm utilities back in the day with a much heavier does of corporatism. Thais why I dislike the why it was govt fostered on set up.


----------



## Agit8r

The short answer is that the market does not do everything better


----------



## CrazedScotsman

The biggest problem I have is with AT&T's "long haul" Servers. When I run a trace, I start seeing packet drops starting with them. For me, AT&T is the problem and there isn't a damn thing I can do about it.

As for Satelite Internet, it will never ever be a viable option for certain things like gaming. You can not play your PC Games, XBox, Playstation, GameCube or whatever Nintendo system is out now over Satelite and you never will unless it's a Turn Based Game like Checkers or Chess. Even then, people will become frustrated by how slow the game is moving. 

I'm rather lucky since I live in a Rural area but we have Fiber Optic up to the end of our street and from there it's copper. Then again, that means nothing when the Service Provider contracts out to AT&T for their "Long Haul" servers and AT&T is really bad about fixing problems.


----------



## DiamondDave

RKMBrown said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need a public option in this market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great.
> 
> Who pulls the lines? Who installs the backbone? Who buys the switches?
> 
> This doesn't happen by magic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> American taxpayers already paid for fibre to every single home in America.  Congress let them off the hook based on some crazy idea that we would rather have wireless cell phone data plans.
Click to expand...


1.. no they did not
2.. you're not going to get fiber to every home in ability any time soon.. some just too out of the way
3.. The government has no business in the business of ISP


----------



## Plasmaball

DiamondDave said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol you are in the business and dont even get NN...lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have gone over NN ad nauseum.... and it is not about the freedom and private competition...
Click to expand...


uh huh


----------



## Uncensored2008

DiamondDave said:


> Funny... verizon may have laid the fiber or local copper from the CO... but all other companies have access to it..



For a price - i.e. they lease bandwidth.



> I actually buy my local high speed line access from a west coast company...



It's Level 3, Verizon, or SBC (AT&T) - they have at least California locked up. It's not that it's illegal to compete, it just isn't practical. It would cost billions to recreate fiber backbones that are already in place.



> But hey, you got the cash and the land rights to lay the fiver and/or local copper... more power too ya.. go into competition... you are free to do so



Exactly.


----------



## RKMBrown

DiamondDave said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great.
> 
> Who pulls the lines? Who installs the backbone? Who buys the switches?
> 
> This doesn't happen by magic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American taxpayers already paid for fibre to every single home in America.  Congress let them off the hook based on some crazy idea that we would rather have wireless cell phone data plans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.. no they did not
> 2.. you're not going to get fiber to every home in ability any time soon.. some just too out of the way
> 3.. The government has no business in the business of ISP
Click to expand...


Yes, we did.  Excuses.  Govco's job is to break of monopolies and regulate interstate commerce, yeah that's the internet and other types of communication trunks and right of ways leased to telco's by our government.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

But that was inevitable because DARPA took the goods first as always. The military gets all the goodies first. Hence why I always buy military grade gear...like my new specops watch that is just awesome.


----------



## Plasmaball

DiamondDave said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> BINGO
> 
> And hey.. if the 'monopoly complainers' own or can lease rights to land spanning miles to make a fiber mesh or ring, you go ahead and lay the millions and millions of dollars for fiber for a backbone... be my guest.. more competition is a good thing
> 
> In my town alone, I have have basically 5 choices for last mile or household internet service.. companies battling for it in a town with less than 750 houses
> 
> Laughable, these little progs are
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i have one company.
> I hope google fiber takes off and kills prices and all the rape they do.
> 
> But no you go switch to those 5 companies, They all give you the same basic rates for the same shit ball quality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But it's a MONOPOLY
> 
> Not to mention I have choices between class..  I even have the choice that I have taken and having a ds3 directly to my fucking house, which I then have the option of offering to my neighbors to piggyback.. and this is paid for as a benefit in my employment in this fucking business...
> 
> I guess your McDonalds job does not come with that benefit
> 
> Funny.. I have no problems with quality.. and I could choose between several carries to handle the transmission.. my other neighbor has no problems with their comcast.. some complain about the speeds of the 2 dsl options by Verizon, but it is cheaper.. the old house about 4 miles up the road went the satellite route, download not bad, but upload sucks, but hey, HE LIVES A MILE OFF THE ROAD ON A FARM AND DOES NOT EVEN HAVE PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER...
Click to expand...


It is, but then you are bias. 
I can go down the list of companies and the rates will all end up being about the same. Class or no class. We pay too much for internet.


----------



## DiamondDave

Plasmaball said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol you are in the business and dont even get NN...lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have gone over NN ad nauseum.... and it is not about the freedom and private competition...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> uh huh
Click to expand...


C'mon Mr. Internet and data transmission expert.. you go right ahead and educate us about the way companies should peer with each other and be forced to by big mommy government or else... you tell us how not letting a company charge more if they have to run an extra 4 miles to your house is about freedom... you tell us that QoS is a bad thing

Idiot


----------



## DiamondDave

Plasmaball said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> i have one company.
> I hope google fiber takes off and kills prices and all the rape they do.
> 
> But no you go switch to those 5 companies, They all give you the same basic rates for the same shit ball quality
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it's a MONOPOLY
> 
> Not to mention I have choices between class..  I even have the choice that I have taken and having a ds3 directly to my fucking house, which I then have the option of offering to my neighbors to piggyback.. and this is paid for as a benefit in my employment in this fucking business...
> 
> I guess your McDonalds job does not come with that benefit
> 
> Funny.. I have no problems with quality.. and I could choose between several carries to handle the transmission.. my other neighbor has no problems with their comcast.. some complain about the speeds of the 2 dsl options by Verizon, but it is cheaper.. the old house about 4 miles up the road went the satellite route, download not bad, but upload sucks, but hey, HE LIVES A MILE OFF THE ROAD ON A FARM AND DOES NOT EVEN HAVE PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is, but then you are bias.
> I can go down the list of companies and the rates will all end up being about the same. Class or no class. We pay too much for internet.
Click to expand...


Oh... another little thing you want even cheaper, no matter how much it costs the provider.. or maybe you want it subsidized by big mommy government too

Go fuck yourself, prog


----------



## francoHFW

Also, them dang furriners pay $5-10/month for broadband...we've got terminal corporatism. Great job, pubbies!


----------



## Contumacious

ClosedCaption said:


> I get tired of being right.  This is why American internet access sucks because there isnt any competition and the companies dont give a shit.  Since they have it locked down they jack up the prices and keep services wack and give you the finger



Incorrect.

The internet is slow so that the NSA and the  GCHQ can best monitor our movements.

Its a matter of national security


----------



## DiamondDave

RKMBrown said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> American taxpayers already paid for fibre to every single home in America.  Congress let them off the hook based on some crazy idea that we would rather have wireless cell phone data plans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.. no they did not
> 2.. you're not going to get fiber to every home in ability any time soon.. some just too out of the way
> 3.. The government has no business in the business of ISP
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, we did.  Excuses.  Govco's job is to break of monopolies and regulate interstate commerce, yeah that's the internet and other types of communication trunks and right of ways leased to telco's by our government.
Click to expand...


No... that is the common myth that the pols told you.. in fact, it was never the plan to be able to go to every house.. it is an impossibility with current technology.. unless you think an extra 200K in materials, equipment, and labor to lay fiber to a rural farmhouse or remote outpost is feasible

Government should be out of it all together.. if I own a rail line and I want to lease tyo company A but not company B.. so be it.. if I want to get rights to run it thru your yard, I deal with you, not mommy government...

This whole myth of fiber to every house is laughable


----------



## RDD_1210

buckeye45_73 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> All that NSA snooping eats up bandwidth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lack of competition is the problem
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> WAAAIIIIIT A second. There are several competitors, but what's funny is I thought you would want govt control, you want competition? multiple PRIVATE companies, no way. Only the Government can do this!
> 
> 
> btw my internet is just fine, I can play any game, post, watch videos, all at the same time.
Click to expand...


Do you want it to remain that way?


----------



## thereisnospoon

ClosedCaption said:


> Why is American internet so slow? - The Week
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The country that literally invented the internet is now behind Estonia in terms of download speeds
> 
> A
> ccording to a recent study by Ookla Speedtest, the U.S. ranks a shocking 31st in the world in terms of average download speeds. The leaders in the world are Hong Kong at 72.49 Mbps and Singapore on 58.84 Mbps. And America? Averaging speeds of 20.77 Mbps, it falls behind countries like Estonia, Hungary, Slovakia, and Uruguay.
> 
> Its upload speeds are even worse. Globally, the U.S. ranks 42nd with an average upload speed of 6.31 Mbps, behind Lesotho, Belarus, Slovenia, and other countries you only hear mentioned on Jeopardy.
> 
> So how did America fall behind? How did the country that literally invented the internet  and the home to world-leading tech companies such as Apple, Microsoft, Netflix, Facebook, Google, and Cisco  fall behind so many others in download speeds?
> 
> Susan Crawford argues that "huge telecommunication companies" such as Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon, and AT&T have "divided up markets and put themselves in a position where they're subject to no competition."
> 
> *How? The 1996 Telecommunications Act  which was meant to foster competition  allowed cable companies and telecoms companies to simply divide markets and merge their way to monopoly, allowing them to charge customers higher and higher prices without the kind of investment in internet infrastructure, especially in next-generation fiber optic connections, that is ongoing in other countries. Fiber optic connections offer a particularly compelling example. While expensive to build, they offer faster and smoother connections than traditional copper wire connections. But Verizon stopped building out fiber optic infrastructure in 2010  citing high costs  just as other countries were getting to work.*
> 
> Crawford told the BBC:
> 
> *We deregulated high-speed internet access 10 years ago and since then we've seen enormous consolidation and monopolies Left to their own devices, companies that supply internet access will charge high prices, because they face neither competition nor oversight. [BBC]*
> 
> If a market becomes a monopoly, there's often nothing whatever to force monopolists to invest in infrastructure or improve their service. *Of course, in the few places where a new competitor like Google Fiber has appeared, telecoms companies have been spooked and forced to cut prices and improve service in response to the new competition.* But that isn't happening everywhere. It's very expensive for a new competitor to come into a market, like telecommunications, that has very high barriers to entry. Laying copper wire or fiber optic cable is expensive, and if the incumbent companies won't grant new competitors access to their infrastructure, then the free market forces of competition don't work and infrastructure stagnates, even as consumer anger and desire for competition rises due to poor service.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get tired of being right.  This is why American internet access sucks because there isnt any competition and the companies dont give a shit.  Since they have it locked down they jack up the prices and keep services wack and give you the finger
Click to expand...


This is an issue that crossed all lines of political ideology.
Unfortunately, the ISP's are doing the bare minimum to get by and charging us an arm and a leg.
And there is little that can be done to stop it..
THIS....https://fiber.google.com/about/...Could be the product that breaks the chains of tortiselike internet...
Now, here's the rub....
Too often when broadband competitors announce entry into a marketplace, the existing company in the market will use their clout to keep out the entry.
For example, the incumbent firm may use it's influence in the region to coerce the power company to set higher per pole fees. This is the cost per utility pole the provider pays to the utility pole owner. 
Or the incumbent company may suddenly start filing lawsuits seeking relief from intrusion on it's "rights of way"..
It's a tough business to any new wire line ISP/video/telecom provider to enter into a new market.
Let's hope that Google can out muscle the big boys on this.


----------



## francoHFW

ANOTHER thing shortsighted Pubs won't invest in, we'll be a banana republic in no time...


----------



## Antares

NYcarbineer said:


> I remember that campaign in the nineties to pass that telecom bill.  The industry was all for it,
> 
> telling everyone how much better it would be for consumers.
> 
> Basic lesson:  when corporations tell you they want certain laws because they will make it better for you, the consumer,
> 
> if you bet that they are lying, you will win much more than you lose.



...and yet YOU believe that when the GOVERNMENT says it THEY mean...too funny.


----------



## Rozman

We have a few members here who are on the Internet all the time trolling.


----------



## The T

Rozman said:


> We have a few members here who are on the Internet all the time trolling.


Waiting for their Gubmint Check...


----------



## RKMBrown

DiamondDave said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.. no they did not
> 2.. you're not going to get fiber to every home in ability any time soon.. some just too out of the way
> 3.. The government has no business in the business of ISP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we did.  Excuses.  Govco's job is to break of monopolies and regulate interstate commerce, yeah that's the internet and other types of communication trunks and right of ways leased to telco's by our government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No... that is the common myth that the pols told you.. in fact, it was never the plan to be able to go to every house.. it is an impossibility with current technology.. unless you think an extra 200K in materials, equipment, and labor to lay fiber to a rural farmhouse or remote outpost is feasible
> 
> Government should be out of it all together.. if I own a rail line and I want to lease tyo company A but not company B.. so be it.. if I want to get rights to run it thru your yard, I deal with you, not mommy government...
> 
> This whole myth of fiber to every house is laughable
Click to expand...


That's complete nonsense.  With people like you around to tell everyone how impossible and expensive it is to run a wire, it's a miracle we have power lines and roads at all in this country.


----------



## thereisnospoon

longknife said:


> I don't know about the rest of you but I get totally frustrated with the slowness of browsing the internet on forums such as this. Whether it's Firefox, or Opera, or Chrome, that stupid little circle at the top keeps going and nothing happens.
> 
> It may be because I'm still using Vista.
> 
> [Just counted 3.5 seconds to go from quick reply to advanced]



Vista is perhaps Microsoft's worst OS ever.
Please, go buy Windows 8.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Interesting that the conservative posters here are arguing in favor of monopolies. You have a leftist OP making the Capitalist argument for more competition and the right wingers rebuffing him.  I must have fallen into the Bizarro World



LIke I stated, this is an issue that crosses all lines of political ideology.
I would hope that as consumers, we could set aside our political differences.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Jarhead said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> All that NSA snooping eats up bandwidth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lack of competition is the problem
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lack of competition?
> 
> Here in NY I am bombarded daily by salespeople for a multitude of internet carriers.
Click to expand...


Which ones. Verizon? Local Cable co. What else?


----------



## Jarlaxle

I'm on a fairly slow DSL due to living in the middle of nowhere...though my mother (on a dead-end street in a town of 2500) has fiber-optics running at about 72K.


----------



## The T

Jarhead said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> All that NSA snooping eats up bandwidth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lack of competition is the problem
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lack of competition?
> 
> Here in NY I am bombarded daily by salespeople for a multitude of internet carriers.
Click to expand...

Same here. Competition is fierce.


----------



## buckeye45_73

thereisnospoon said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that the conservative posters here are arguing in favor of monopolies. You have a leftist OP making the Capitalist argument for more competition and the right wingers rebuffing him. I must have fallen into the Bizarro World
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LIke I stated, this is an issue that crosses all lines of political ideology.
> I would hope that as consumers, we could set aside our political differences.
Click to expand...

 
  I think the funny thing is the reasons to support this in the OP, which are valid, but the OPS would prefer we have single payer health insurance, NO OPTIONS, NO COMPETITION......and health insurance is more important and way more expensive than internet.
 But I do applaud him for starting to figure it out.


----------



## longknife

Just an aside - I was browsing this with Firefox with thee tabs open and it was sooooooo slow.
Just switched to Opera with only 1 tab open and it's ten times faster.


----------



## Old Rocks

Spiderman said:


> All that NSA snooping eats up bandwidth.



I don't like NSA snooping any more than any other American. But that is irrelevant to this thread. 

There are a bunch of nations with better internet access than the US. And that is reflected in our access to education. Like health care, we are way behind a bunch of  1st world nations in citizens access to the internet. And, like health care, the reason we are is that a bunch of people are protecting profits for the few over the interests of the whole nation.


----------



## buckeye45_73

Old Rocks said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> All that NSA snooping eats up bandwidth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like NSA snooping any more than any other American. But that is irrelevant to this thread.
> 
> There are a bunch of nations with better internet access than the US. And that is reflected in our access to education. Like health care, we are way behind a bunch of 1st world nations in citizens access to the internet. And, like health care, the reason we are is that a bunch of people are protecting profits for the few over the interests of the whole nation.
Click to expand...

 

 bullshit, you love government and want it controlling more. And to prove it, we have the inevitable laundry list of how the government provides for all other countries. I'd rather have the private sector do it......


----------



## Harry Dresden

WinterBorn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong.  But...  You're a dimocrap, which means you're stupid.
> 
> Ask yourself why Europe uses 220 Volt systems and we use 110.
> 
> If you can answer that, you'll have the answer to our slower internet.
> 
> I ain't gonna hold my breath.  You are, afterall, a stupid fucking dimocrap
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Holy fuck, did you just say voltage???? Really???
> 
> Oh and by the way, I saw your original post where you blamed it on the number of computers per capita. Why did you delete that post? Hahahahaha
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depending on the system your provider has, the number of users can effect the speeds.  *Fortunately many areas are going to fiber optics from source to the house*.
Click to expand...


thats what i have.....2 years now, no problems with it, never been down.....with Time Warner it was always going down....sometimes for a couple of hours....


----------



## Darkwind

SmedlyButler said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmedlyButler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure tho. I second your request for a clarification. I'm sure it'll be edifying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that voltage had anything to do with the speed of the internet.
> 
> How did you people ever make it past the third grade?  Honest to God.
> 
> What I said was, 'look at why we have 110 v. Europe's 220.
> 
> Because of the evolution of electricity.
> 
> We had it first.  We had the inventors of it right here, in the US of A.
> 
> Europe soon had electricity too.  At one time, Europe and America both used 110 (120, whatever) but....
> 
> Then Tesla invented the Alternating Current.  Which changed everything.  Europe, the Germans in particular wanted to go with the 220 but with 50 Hz.
> 
> We wanted to stay with 60 Hz and 110 Volts.
> 
> Eventually...  Here it is better written than I can manage --
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Europe was 120 V too, just like Japan and the US today. It has been deemed necessary to increase voltage to get more power with less losses and voltage drop from the same copper wire diameter. At the time the US also wanted to change but because of the cost involved to replace all electric appliances, they decided not to. At the time (50s-60s) the average US household already had a fridge, a washing-machine, etc., but not in Europe.
> 
> The end result is that now, the US seems not to have evolved from the 50s and 60s, and still copes with problems as light bulbs that burn out rather quickly when they are close to the transformer (too high a voltage), or just the other way round: not enough voltage at the end of the line (105 to 127 volt spread !).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same thing with the internet.  We invented it.  We set up the infrastructure to support it YEARS before the Euro-Weenies.
> 
> When they finally got around to it, the technology had evolved to a point that they could start from scratch with cutting-edge tech where for us to start over would cause massive problems and unnecessary expense.
> 
> You people are dense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was pretty sure you weren't putting internet speed and voltage in the same basket. But your original post was a little ambiguous. Maybe one reason I didn't pick up the inference is I'm not sure the analogy is valid re: the Internet. There are no industry speed protocols or such that limit hardware as did the choice of voltage and a.c. over d.c. when designing and building infra-structure. An interesting proposal though, I'm going to research it a bit. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Thats correct, but we are still using some infrastructure from the old PSTN.  Old copper wires that a single strand in rural areas are trying to carry digital loads they were never meant to carry.  That is the first generation communication infrastructure after the telegraph.  

Its funny, but I'm pretty sure that there is still miles and miles of dark fiber out there.  Perhaps if the companies that own them are not going to use them, they should sell the fiber....but that becomes an ownership problem and I am against ANY Government intervention.


----------



## Harry Dresden

OnePercenter said:


> All American internet isn't slow. In Vegas I have Cox. (150 Mbps down/45Mbps up) Privately held company vs. publicly held.
> 
> OBTW; The future is WiFi.



yea i can get 45.....and more if i want it....


----------



## WinterBorn

SmedlyButler said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coming from someone in the business.. the article, like the OP, is complete horse shit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you using the same shovel here that you use for the cable trenches?
> 
> Seriously, it's a worthy subject, have any substantive input? Especially if you are "in the business".
Click to expand...


How about that cable trenches rarely involves hand digging?


----------



## Missouri_Mike

So I decided to click on the now banned OP's link and if you do you will notice a few interesting things.

First of all the US is pretty good with internet speeds. Not the top but sure as hell not the bottom.

The big communist countries seem to be slower than we are....

Russia- 21.5 Pretty close to us but still behind.
China- 17.3, of course you can only access the websites they approve of anyway.
Venezuela? A smoking 1.8
The libtard country of free healthcare Cuba...1.8

Nobody in South America exceeds 15, Chile, the apparent leader in the interwebs sits at 13.2.

Africans fare a bit worse but apperently it's plenty to get out the scam emails Kenya wins with 6.7 but there are a lot without the information needed to actually assign them a number. Nice job Africa.

Europe is a mixed bag but not really if you understand what you're looking at. Germany is right up there along with France but Greece? Yeah not so much.

We're doing just fine here. Get over it.

BTW? Little countries like Japan an island with like a billion people and South Korea seem exceptional. North Korea has nothing. Just for comparison.


----------



## Bill Angel

My landlord recently upgraded the wi-fi that he offers to his tenants, so now I can watch HDTV on my tablet computer without glitches, freezeups, etc. So my internet connection is now as fast as I need it to be for what I like to do on the net. I admit that response times can be terrible when I visit certain particular websites, but isn't that a server issue rather than an ISP issue?


----------



## WinterBorn

Uncensored2008 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need a public option in this market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great.
> 
> Who pulls the lines? Who installs the backbone? Who buys the switches?
> 
> This doesn't happen by magic.
Click to expand...


We do.  I work for a company that builds fiber optic systems.

The good news is that many power companies and some municipalities are buildingtheir own fiber systems.

Chattanooga has a pretty good one with EPB.  It is getting around more and more.  We are almost finished with a major rural fiber optic build that was subsidized by some stimulus money.  I hope I never work another job under those rules again.


----------



## The T

WinterBorn said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need a public option in this market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great.
> 
> Who pulls the lines? Who installs the backbone? Who buys the switches?
> 
> This doesn't happen by magic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do. I work for a company that builds fiber optic systems.
> 
> The good news is that many power companies and some municipalities are buildingtheir own fiber systems.
> 
> Chattanooga has a pretty good one with EPB. It is getting around more and more. We are almost finished with a major rural fiber optic build that was subsidized by some stimulus money. I hope I never work another job under those rules again.
Click to expand...

I do radio work for public safety entities that use fiber for their networks. It's the way to go.


----------



## Jughead

> Why is American internet so slow?


Here's a solution that should eliminate a slow internet problem.


----------



## The T

AzMike said:


> So I decided to click on the now banned OP's link and if you do you will notice a few interesting things.
> 
> First of all the US is pretty good with internet speeds. Not the top but sure as hell not the bottom.
> 
> The big communist countries seem to be slower than we are....
> 
> Russia- 21.5 Pretty close to us but still behind.
> China- 17.3, of course you can only access the websites they approve of anyway.
> Venezuela? A smoking 1.8
> The libtard country of free healthcare Cuba...1.8
> 
> Nobody in South America exceeds 15, Chile, the apparent leader in the interwebs sits at 13.2.
> 
> Africans fare a bit worse but apperently it's plenty to get out the scam emails Kenya wins with 6.7 but there are a lot without the information needed to actually assign them a number. Nice job Africa.
> 
> Europe is a mixed bag but not really if you understand what you're looking at. Germany is right up there along with France but Greece? Yeah not so much.
> 
> We're doing just fine here. Get over it.
> 
> BTW? Little countries like Japan an island with like a billion people and South Korea seem exceptional. *North Korea* has nothing. Just for comparison.


 




​


----------



## Political Junky

Other countries have faster and cheaper internet service...same with mobile phone service.


----------



## Missouri_Mike

Political Junky said:


> Other countries have faster and cheaper internet service...same with mobile phone service.



You're an idiot. Who fucking cares? Based on what? Other countries (99%) of them have slower internet if they have it at all and no cell service.

WTF is your point?


----------



## WinterBorn

One thing I will say about most Americans, if you tell them someone else has something faster, bigger, better or cheaper, they will jump thru hoops to argue.

I have fast internet.  I also have internet most places I go.

Is there some reason that shouldn't be enough?


----------



## Londoner

It's a Monopoly. The large telecom giants divided US markets into fixed no-compete zones. Nearly every local market has a captive audience which means these companies don't need to invest and innovate to retain or grow their customer base.

Capitalism is a "God-send" when it fosters perfect competition. However, capitalism - or should I say, the final phase of capitalism, monopoly capitalism - becomes lethal when it leads to the formation of a rentier class over necessary utilities. Many of the forces  preaching the value of deregulated markets ended up, in the back of the house, creating mega-merger-monopolies over energy, health care and the internet. These monopolies have played a role in bankrupting middle class consumers.

If you are not innovating and competing, than the government should bust you up.

Google wants to offer the most advanced internet speeds in the country for a fraction of the current rates (and they also have a free option which is better than what over 80% of the country gets). But, unfortunately, Google is being denied entry into all but a handful of regions because it cannot unseat the telecom monopolies. One of the reasons we can' fix this problem is because 1/2 the country listens to people like Rush Limbaugh, who, as rule, never, ever, ever talk about the ant-trust monopolies that control our domestic economy. If the rightwing voter challenged his news sources, we could begin to address all the corrupt markets that have bankrupted our nation. As it stands, though, they lack the resources to even investigate if there is a telecom monopoly. Why? Because they are among its chief victims.

Go here
Search Results for 'captive audience' - Book TV


----------



## thereisnospoon

Jarhead said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that the conservative posters here are arguing in favor of monopolies. You have a leftist OP making the Capitalist argument for more competition and the right wingers rebuffing him.  I must have fallen into the Bizarro World
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is internet access deemed a monopoly?
> 
> Right off the top of my head I can get access via TWC, VZ and Optimum....and I know there are others.
Click to expand...


Cablevision (Optimum) and Time Warner Serve your town?
That's pretty rare.


----------



## thereisnospoon

OnePercenter said:


> All American internet isn't slow. In Vegas I have Cox. (150 Mbps down/45Mbps up) Privately held company vs. publicly held.
> 
> OBTW; The future is WiFi.



nope..Not yet. Next up..Fiber.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Agit8r said:


> The short answer is that the market does not do everything better



The short answer to what?


----------



## thereisnospoon

WinterBorn said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need a public option in this market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great.
> 
> Who pulls the lines? Who installs the backbone? Who buys the switches?
> 
> This doesn't happen by magic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do.  I work for a company that builds fiber optic systems.
> 
> The good news is that many power companies and some municipalities are buildingtheir own fiber systems.
> 
> Chattanooga has a pretty good one with EPB.  It is getting around more and more.  We are almost finished with a major rural fiber optic build that was subsidized by some stimulus money.  I hope I never work another job under those rules again.
Click to expand...


Really..Can you give some examples of the most frustrating issues?


----------



## buckeye45_73

AzMike said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Other countries have faster and cheaper internet service...same with mobile phone service.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot. Who fucking cares? Based on what? Other countries (99%) of them have slower internet if they have it at all and no cell service.
> 
> WTF is your point?
Click to expand...

 

 it's junkey, he always opposes the US, and cant think for himself and I'm sure he wants to strangle closed for suggesting competition and not a government solution


----------



## buckeye45_73

Londoner said:


> It's a Monopoly. The large telecom giants divided US markets into fixed no-compete zones. Nearly every local market has a captive audience which means these companies don't need to invest and innovate to retain or grow their customer base.
> 
> Capitalism is a "God-send" when it fosters perfect competition. However, capitalism - or should I say, the final phase of capitalism, monopoly capitalism - becomes lethal when it leads to the formation of a rentier class over necessary utilities. Many of the forces preaching the value of deregulated markets ended up, in the back of the house, creating mega-merger-monopolies over energy, health care and the internet. These monopolies have played a role in bankrupting middle class consumers.
> 
> If you are not innovating and competing, than the government should bust you up.
> 
> Google wants to offer the most advanced internet speeds in the country for a fraction of the current rates (and they also have a free option which is better than what over 80% of the country gets). But, unfortunately, Google is being denied entry into all but a handful of regions because it cannot unseat the telecom monopolies. One of the reasons we can' fix this problem is because 1/2 the country listens to people like Rush Limbaugh, who, as rule, never, ever, ever talk about the ant-trust monopolies that control our domestic economy. If the rightwing voter challenged his news sources, we could begin to address all the corrupt markets that have bankrupted our nation. As it stands, though, they lack the resources to even investigate if there is a telecom monopoly. Why? Because they are among its chief victims.
> 
> Go here
> Search Results for 'captive audience' - Book TV


 

 you're an idiot, I listen to Rush Limbaugh and I love competition. Conservatives want competition, hence we want lower regulation, so more companies can start up without having to pay as much and jump through all the hoops the major corporations can easily do.

 Also we want lower taxes to increase incentives to invest and make profits. Democrats, well smart ones do this all the time, they're called mayors and they have all kinds of tax breaks to lure jobs and it works.

 so next time don't quote talking points when all your side wants is government solutions, which cause most of the bullshit. I'm all for anti-monopolies, but I'm also for letting companies die if they cant compete and for having laws that encourage people to start a business, not bitching about profits and act like they're stealing from you.


----------



## Political Junky

AzMike said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Other countries have faster and cheaper internet service...same with mobile phone service.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot. Who fucking cares? Based on what? Other countries (99%) of them have slower internet if they have it at all and no cell service.
> 
> WTF is your point?
Click to expand...

The US doesn't make the top ten in speed of the internet.

Top 20: Where to Find the World's Fastest Internet: The Download - Bloomberg

Check out the mobile phone situation -

http://newamerica.net/publications/policy/an_international_comparison_of_cell_phone_plans_and_prices


----------



## Iceweasel

Uncensored2008 said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was almost instant for me. I am using an 8 year old computer w/ 2gigs of memory and the slowest internet cable speed Comcast has. I think the big difference is the OS. I'm on Linux Debian and using Iceweasel (Firefox). Chromium runs about the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I duel boot the machine I'm on between Windows 7 and Ubuntu. I have never seen Ubuntu responding faster. Chromium or Firefox. Windows 7 has better drivers for my GTX480, so on graphic intensive sites, I get better performance from Windows. Most of the time I can't tell the difference.
> 
> Firefox crashes, Chromium doesn't - but OS is irrelevant in that regard.
Click to expand...

I have a quadruple boot setup, three are linux based, XP on another partition. All linux distros run video better but only after selecting the right driver. The overhead is much less too, plus I have three (or more) virtual desktops with two monitors. My browsers don't crash, but bear in mind that Ubuntu distros and their offspring are based on Debian unstable. 
I'm on Wheezy (stable) but I didn't have issues with the various Ubuntus, Mint, etc. until I tweaked them into not working. Windows takes a long time to boot so I seldom use it. Maybe they fixed that in 7?


----------



## RKMBrown

longknife said:


> Just an aside - I was browsing this with Firefox with thee tabs open and it was sooooooo slow.
> Just switched to Opera with only 1 tab open and it's ten times faster.



Then you are probably short on memory.  Windows is a memory hog. Firefox is average on memory.  Opera's the best of the browsers when it comes to being a miser of memory usage.


----------



## WinterBorn

thereisnospoon said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great.
> 
> Who pulls the lines? Who installs the backbone? Who buys the switches?
> 
> This doesn't happen by magic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We do.  I work for a company that builds fiber optic systems.
> 
> The good news is that many power companies and some municipalities are buildingtheir own fiber systems.
> 
> Chattanooga has a pretty good one with EPB.  It is getting around more and more.  We are almost finished with a major rural fiber optic build that was subsidized by some stimulus money.  I hope I never work another job under those rules again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really..Can you give some examples of the most frustrating issues?
Click to expand...


Antiquated rules for dealing with fiber optics, pay scales that are way out of line with the area, and requirements for employment that can cripple production.


----------



## Uncensored2008

thereisnospoon said:


> Vista is perhaps Microsoft's worst OS ever.
> Please, go buy Windows 8.



Ignore that the same Longhorn core powers both...


----------



## Uncensored2008

thereisnospoon said:


> Which ones. Verizon? Local Cable co. What else?



The problem is that people don't understand the difference between resellers and actual carriers.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Political Junky said:


> Other countries have faster and cheaper internet service...same with mobile phone service.



Some do and some don't.

Yes, Seoul has crazy fast internet, it also has the population of California packed into an area the size Phoenix. England sucks on Internet - still using BRI in most places. Except London, which surprise, has very fast links.

The fact that high density urban population centers have faster links shouldn't surprise anyone. New York City has great coverage and speeds too. average it out with Fargo, ND and the speeds look low.


----------



## RKMBrown

I live in the boondocks.  I have access to 3 different "actual" ground based wireless carriers via various towers and frequency bands. I have access to a satellite carrier, as does almost all of North America. I have access to slow dsl, slow because of the distance and the fact that it's only available over two old fashioned copper lines.  I live two miles as the crow flies from the nearest fiber trunk, where all the local internet access is being routed from.  

What I want is for permission to run fiber that last two miles.  I have two "sets" of power lines that run over and by my ranch.  Both of them have telephone wire already on them.  As of yet neither of them have cable tv or fiber lines.  Seems like a natural process to go ahead and put modern high bandwidth pipes over these lines and let the folks patch in every so often down the line.


----------



## Uncensored2008

thereisnospoon said:


> nope..Not yet. Next up..Fiber.



Fiber is already in use.

People don't understand networks. Claims that 4G or 5G will be the "next thing" reveals that sort of ignorance. The notion that you hit that 4G tower and your signal bounces along from cell to cell until that porn site comes up is absurd.

The 4G tower you hit routs to the closest CO and then rides on the same fiber backbone as everything else does. Fiber is and will remain the means for high speed communication into the foreseeable future.


----------



## Indeependent

FIOS is lightning fast no matter what I throw at it.
We have 4 people watching TV over the Internet.
The actual quality of TV blows CableVision away.

I use Opera even though I have to defragment the tmp files once a day.


----------



## RKMBrown

Uncensored2008 said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> nope..Not yet. Next up..Fiber.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fiber is already in use.
> 
> People don't understand networks. Claims that 4G or 5G will be the "next thing" reveals that sort of ignorance. The notion that you hit that 4G tower and your signal bounces along from cell to cell until that porn site comes up is absurd.
> 
> The 4G tower you hit routs to the closest CO and then rides on the same fiber backbone as everything else does. Fiber is and will remain the means for high speed communication into the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...


Both are useful and there are still quite a few point to point microwave towers in use that fiber has not replaced yet.  But I'd rather have fiber running to my house and regulate wireless bandwidth for mobile use, and limited use in private environments (limited as in limited amplification so my private use does not interfere with the entire neighborhoods private use). The over air frequency bands are a limited resource, so we need to regulate them.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Iceweasel said:


> I have a quadruple boot setup, three are linux based, XP on another partition.



There's your problem. The NT Kernal is outdated and XP doesn't use the graphics hardware directly to render pages. All modern versions of Linux do, as do Longhorn based systems.  XP will actually use your CPU to render pages. 



> All linux distros run video better but only after selecting the right driver. The overhead is much less too, plus I have three (or more) virtual desktops with two monitors. My browsers don't crash, but bear in mind that Ubuntu distros and their offspring are based on Debian unstable.



Linux uses OpenGL, which is inferior to DirectX. For something like rendering 2D web pages that's fine. For 3D it's so far behind Direct 3D that it's not even funny.

And only Firefox crashes. Never had Chromium crash.



> I'm on Wheezy (stable) but I didn't have issues with the various Ubuntus, Mint, etc. until I tweaked them into not working. Windows takes a long time to boot so I seldom use it. Maybe they fixed that in 7?



I used to run Mint, but I actually like the Unity GUI, so I've been running Ubuntu for a couple of years.

Back in the XP days, I ran Linux 90% of the time. Since Longhorn came out, I boot into Linux once every couple of weeks.


----------



## Uncensored2008

RKMBrown said:


> Both are useful and there are still quite a few point to point microwave towers in use that fiber has not replaced yet.  But I'd rather have fiber running to my house and regulate wireless bandwidth for mobile use, and limited use in private environments (limited as in limited amplification so my private use does not interfere with the entire neighborhoods private use). The over air frequency bands are a limited resource, so we need to regulate them.



Yes absolutely. I love 4G. I'm in the Los Angeles area - major metropolitan=good coverage. I get about 30 down and 22 up off of Verizon. I ride a train to work, so this is really nice. My only point was that 4G is a connection technology, not a replacement for traditional fiber backbones. 

At work, we are so backwards that I have 11 bonded T1's in an EoC to try and get halfway decent speeds. 2014 and there STILL is no fiber in my area. I have a theoretical 15mbps pipe (I split one off for dedicated VOIP) and generally test out at about 11. 4G kicks the shit out of my hard line.


----------



## RKMBrown

Uncensored2008 said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a quadruple boot setup, three are linux based, XP on another partition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's your problem. The NT Kernal is outdated and XP doesn't use the graphics hardware directly to render pages. All modern versions of Linux do, as do Longhorn based systems.  XP will actually use your CPU to render pages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All linux distros run video better but only after selecting the right driver. The overhead is much less too, plus I have three (or more) virtual desktops with two monitors. My browsers don't crash, but bear in mind that Ubuntu distros and their offspring are based on Debian unstable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Linux uses OpenGL, which is inferior to DirectX. For something like rendering 2D web pages that's fine. For 3D it's so far behind Direct 3D that it's not even funny.
> 
> And only Firefox crashes. Never had Chromium crash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm on Wheezy (stable) but I didn't have issues with the various Ubuntus, Mint, etc. until I tweaked them into not working. Windows takes a long time to boot so I seldom use it. Maybe they fixed that in 7?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I used to run Mint, but I actually like the Unity GUI, so I've been running Ubuntu for a couple of years.
> 
> Back in the XP days, I ran Linux 90% of the time. Since Longhorn came out, I boot into Linux once every couple of weeks.
Click to expand...


Or you could just turn off the fancy effects like translucency and font aliasing in the OS and Browser if you want to eek out a bit more performance.  Would be interesting to see what's faster and more "miserly" of memory turning the toys off on the older XP or vista with the stuff on, or god forbid windoze 8.


----------



## Iceweasel

Uncensored2008 said:


> There's your problem. The NT Kernal is outdated and XP doesn't use the graphics hardware directly to render pages. All modern versions of Linux do, as do Longhorn based systems.  XP will actually use your CPU to render pages.


I don't have a problem and what's the giant sized Windows nVidia drivers for if the cpu is doing the rendering? 


> Linux uses OpenGL, which is inferior to DirectX. For something like rendering 2D web pages that's fine. For 3D it's so far behind Direct 3D that it's not even funny.


HD movies run perfect under my distros so I don't know what an improvement would look like. Windows has far too many other downsides for me. I'm done upgrading Windows. And Microsoft will soon be done with XP.


> I used to run Mint, but I actually like the Unity GUI, so I've been running Ubuntu for a couple of years.
> 
> Back in the XP days, I ran Linux 90% of the time. Since Longhorn came out, I boot into Linux once every couple of weeks.


Unity was not my cup of tea. I had Macs and like them better than Windows. I only keep it for one program that needs XP, and it won't even run under W7. I can do everything I want, Wheezy reads my usb drives, tablet, phone and cameras. Hopefully I won't need to ever pay for software again or get locked into a stupid upgrade cycle..


----------



## RKMBrown

Iceweasel said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's your problem. The NT Kernal is outdated and XP doesn't use the graphics hardware directly to render pages. All modern versions of Linux do, as do Longhorn based systems.  XP will actually use your CPU to render pages.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a problem and what's the giant sized Windows nVidia drivers for if the cpu is doing the rendering?
> 
> 
> 
> Linux uses OpenGL, which is inferior to DirectX. For something like rendering 2D web pages that's fine. For 3D it's so far behind Direct 3D that it's not even funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HD movies run perfect under my distros so I don't know what an improvement would look like. Windows has far too many other downsides for me. I'm done upgrading Windows. And Microsoft will soon be done with XP.
> 
> 
> 
> I used to run Mint, but I actually like the Unity GUI, so I've been running Ubuntu for a couple of years.
> 
> Back in the XP days, I ran Linux 90% of the time. Since Longhorn came out, I boot into Linux once every couple of weeks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unity was not my cup of tea. I had Macs and like them better than Windows. I only keep it for one program that needs XP, and it won't even run under W7. I can do everything I want, Wheezy reads my usb drives, tablet, phone and cameras. Hopefully I won't need to ever pay for software again or get locked into a stupid upgrade cycle..
Click to expand...


For games & specialty graphics applications.  

The older windows operating system code was not written to take advantage of the complex rendering functions in graphics cards. Thus, applications using standard windows controls, fonts, etc. were not taking advantage of said function.  Back when windows was first written graphics cards were mostly just big bit map frame buffers. Rendering can mean many things.  He's talking about the fancy stuff...


----------



## Uncensored2008

RKMBrown said:


> Or you could just turn off the fancy effects like translucency and font aliasing in the OS and Browser if you want to eek out a bit more performance.  Would be interesting to see what's faster and more "miserly" of memory turning the toys off on the older XP or vista with the stuff on, or god forbid windoze 8.



That's a good point.

Here are work I have an I7 3770K on a Sabertooth mobo with 16GB of DDR3 @ 2100, an OCX SSD and a GTX480 for video. 

I love Aero, but I have the hardware to support it. Those who hated Vista were those who were running outdated and under powered machines. Windows 7 didn't "fix" crap, it just let two years pass so that hardware caught up with the requirements of the system.

At home I run a liquid cooled beast OC'd to 5 gHz  I'm not concerned with resource usage. I boot in about a second - SSD's rock.


----------



## Bumberclyde

*Why is American internet so slow?*

The NSA, CIA and FBI are all slow readers.


----------



## Missouri_Mike

Political Junky said:


> AzMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Other countries have faster and cheaper internet service...same with mobile phone service.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot. Who fucking cares? Based on what? Other countries (99%) of them have slower internet if they have it at all and no cell service.
> 
> WTF is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The US doesn't make the top ten in speed of the internet.
> 
> Top 20: Where to Find the World's Fastest Internet: The Download - Bloomberg
> 
> Check out the mobile phone situation -
> 
> An International Comparison of Cell Phone Plans and Prices | NewAmerica.org
Click to expand...


11th, up from 14th just last year. Geez you people get all wound up over the dumbest shit in your quest for the government to make you happy. You want to drop out of the top 25 within two years? Turn it over to the government.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Iceweasel said:


> I don't have a problem and what's the giant sized Windows nVidia drivers for if the cpu is doing the rendering?



On XP?

For gaming.



> HD movies run perfect under my distros so I don't know what an improvement would look like. Windows has far too many other downsides for me. I'm done upgrading Windows. And Microsoft will soon be done with XP.



Movies are a matter of decoding, you aren't rendering anything. Traditionally, the CPU did all the work of decoding MP4 (or whatever) codecs into bitmaps and audio streams. In the last 5 years, a lot of that work has shifted to the GPU - but it is still a general compute operation, it's not setting up triangles, adding textures, and lighting - it's just decoding the stream to map it to pixels on the screen.



> Unity was not my cup of tea.



Yeah, a lot of people detest it.



> I had Macs and like them better than Windows. I only keep it for one program that needs XP, and it won't even run under W7. I can do everything I want, Wheezy reads my usb drives, tablet, phone and cameras. Hopefully I won't need to ever pay for software again or get locked into a stupid upgrade cycle..



99% of what I do requires Windows or runs better under Windows. I've decided that even the Gimp runs better in Windows - purely subjective, but filters apply faster.


----------



## RKMBrown

Uncensored2008 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or you could just turn off the fancy effects like translucency and font aliasing in the OS and Browser if you want to eek out a bit more performance.  Would be interesting to see what's faster and more "miserly" of memory turning the toys off on the older XP or vista with the stuff on, or god forbid windoze 8.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a good point.
> 
> Here are work I have an I7 3770K on a Sabertooth mobo with 16GB of DDR3 @ 2100, an OCX SSD and a GTX480 for video.
> 
> I love Aero, but I have the hardware to support it. Those who hated Vista were those who were running outdated and under powered machines. Windows 7 didn't "fix" crap, it just let two years pass so that hardware caught up with the requirements of the system.
> 
> At home I run a liquid cooled beast OC'd to 5 gHz  I'm not concerned with resource usage. I boot in about a second - SSD's rock.
Click to expand...


SSDs are great for a boot drive... not so good if used for swap / temp files as they have a limited number of write cycles in them... also they are still so damn expensive.  

My main computer (custom) is 5y old now and has only seen one upgrade and that was to the graphics card a couple years back (GTX260, vista64, 4gig ram, 3ghz intel dual core). Mobo's memory subsystem was unable to run with 8gigs of ram, ticked me off but I let it go. It's time for me to build a new box, put this one on the rack as a server.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Uncensored2008 said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a quadruple boot setup, three are linux based, XP on another partition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's your problem. The NT Kernal is outdated and XP doesn't use the graphics hardware directly to render pages. All modern versions of Linux do, as do Longhorn based systems.  XP will actually use your CPU to render pages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All linux distros run video better but only after selecting the right driver. The overhead is much less too, plus I have three (or more) virtual desktops with two monitors. My browsers don't crash, but bear in mind that Ubuntu distros and their offspring are based on Debian unstable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Linux uses OpenGL, which is inferior to DirectX. For something like rendering 2D web pages that's fine. For 3D it's so far behind Direct 3D that it's not even funny.
> 
> And only Firefox crashes. Never had Chromium crash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm on Wheezy (stable) but I didn't have issues with the various Ubuntus, Mint, etc. until I tweaked them into not working. Windows takes a long time to boot so I seldom use it. Maybe they fixed that in 7?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I used to run Mint, but I actually like the Unity GUI, so I've been running Ubuntu for a couple of years.
> 
> Back in the XP days, I ran Linux 90% of the time. Since Longhorn came out, I boot into Linux once every couple of weeks.
Click to expand...

*And only Firefox crashes. Never had Chromium crash.*

i hear ya....same for me....


----------



## Political Junky

AzMike said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot. Who fucking cares? Based on what? Other countries (99%) of them have slower internet if they have it at all and no cell service.
> 
> WTF is your point?
> 
> 
> 
> The US doesn't make the top ten in speed of the internet.
> 
> Top 20: Where to Find the World's Fastest Internet: The Download - Bloomberg
> 
> Check out the mobile phone situation -
> 
> An International Comparison of Cell Phone Plans and Prices | NewAmerica.org
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 11th, up from 14th just last year. Geez you people get all wound up over the dumbest shit in your quest for the government to make you happy. You want to drop out of the top 25 within two years? Turn it over to the government.
Click to expand...

I showed that you were wrong when you said, "Other countries (99%) of them have slower internet if they have it at all and no cell service".


----------



## OnePercenter

Plasmaball said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> All American internet isn't slow. In Vegas I have Cox. (150 Mbps down/45Mbps up) Privately held company vs. publicly held.
> 
> OBTW; The future is WiFi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> compared to south Korea you are on dial up.
Click to expand...


True! But that has to do with big business weening Americans into higher prices to satisfy their stockholders. Cox has no stockholders, thus causes competition.


----------



## OnePercenter

thereisnospoon said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> All American internet isn't slow. In Vegas I have Cox. (150 Mbps down/45Mbps up) Privately held company vs. publicly held.
> 
> OBTW; The future is WiFi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nope..Not yet. Next up..Fiber.
Click to expand...


WiFi is faster, cheaper, and can handle more traffic than fiber. 

You can provide high speed WiFi to a 5 square mile area in 2 hours. Can you do that with fiber?

Almost every new office building being built is without the miles of CAT5.

My office in California has 10 work stations with zero cable.


----------



## OnePercenter

WinterBorn said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We do.  I work for a company that builds fiber optic systems.
> 
> The good news is that many power companies and some municipalities are buildingtheir own fiber systems.
> 
> Chattanooga has a pretty good one with EPB.  It is getting around more and more.  We are almost finished with a major rural fiber optic build that was subsidized by some stimulus money.  I hope I never work another job under those rules again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really..Can you give some examples of the most frustrating issues?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Antiquated rules for dealing with fiber optics, pay scales that are way out of line with the area, and* requirements for employment that can cripple production*.
Click to expand...


Record profits can't be achieved?


----------



## OnePercenter

Uncensored2008 said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> nope..Not yet. Next up..Fiber.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fiber is already in use.
> 
> People don't understand networks. Claims that 4G or 5G will be the "next thing" reveals that sort of ignorance. The notion that you hit that 4G tower and your signal bounces along from cell to cell until that porn site comes up is absurd.
> 
> The 4G tower you hit routs to the closest CO and then rides on the same fiber backbone as everything else does. Fiber is and will remain the means for high speed communication into the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...


Fiber is already in use. Fiber has it's place over long distances where curvature of the earth is an issue, but WiFi is much faster and can handle more information than fiber.


----------



## WinterBorn

OnePercenter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really..Can you give some examples of the most frustrating issues?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antiquated rules for dealing with fiber optics, pay scales that are way out of line with the area, and* requirements for employment that can cripple production*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Record profits can't be achieved?
Click to expand...


Reading a lot into that, aren't you?  

Perhaps if you had asked for more info I could have explained that the contracts required 40% of our workforce be locals and less than 50% be subcontractors.

In the area where we worked there were virtually no experienced linemen, drillers or fiber splicers.  So the ones we brought in could not bring their people with them.  A lineman with a familiar groundman work as a team.  To require that half of that team be dismisses just to provide work for a local when the project is only going to last 2 or 3 years, is ridiculous.

Also, the contracts required we pay the prevailing wage.  Not a problem.  Except the prevailing wage they set is FAR above what the local economy provides.  In one area the average household income is around $16k.   The requirements for what we pay requires that we pay a groundman, with no experience, $22 an hour.  With no overtime that comes to around $45k a year.

The rules for dealing with the fiber date back to the early 1960s.  We were not allowed to handle the fiber if the temperatures were below 30 degrees.  That is lunacy and there is no recourse that won't take years to complete.


----------



## Kosh

OnePercenter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really..Can you give some examples of the most frustrating issues?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antiquated rules for dealing with fiber optics, pay scales that are way out of line with the area, and* requirements for employment that can cripple production*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Record profits can't be achieved?
Click to expand...


You must hate unions too, do you?


----------



## R.C. Christian

ClosedCaption said:


> Why is American internet so slow? - The Week
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The country that literally invented the internet is now behind Estonia in terms of download speeds
> 
> A
> ccording to a recent study by Ookla Speedtest, the U.S. ranks a shocking 31st in the world in terms of average download speeds. The leaders in the world are Hong Kong at 72.49 Mbps and Singapore on 58.84 Mbps. And America? Averaging speeds of 20.77 Mbps, it falls behind countries like Estonia, Hungary, Slovakia, and Uruguay.
> 
> Its upload speeds are even worse. Globally, the U.S. ranks 42nd with an average upload speed of 6.31 Mbps, behind Lesotho, Belarus, Slovenia, and other countries you only hear mentioned on Jeopardy.
> 
> So how did America fall behind? How did the country that literally invented the internet  and the home to world-leading tech companies such as Apple, Microsoft, Netflix, Facebook, Google, and Cisco  fall behind so many others in download speeds?
> 
> Susan Crawford argues that "huge telecommunication companies" such as Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon, and AT&T have "divided up markets and put themselves in a position where they're subject to no competition."
> 
> *How? The 1996 Telecommunications Act  which was meant to foster competition  allowed cable companies and telecoms companies to simply divide markets and merge their way to monopoly, allowing them to charge customers higher and higher prices without the kind of investment in internet infrastructure, especially in next-generation fiber optic connections, that is ongoing in other countries. Fiber optic connections offer a particularly compelling example. While expensive to build, they offer faster and smoother connections than traditional copper wire connections. But Verizon stopped building out fiber optic infrastructure in 2010  citing high costs  just as other countries were getting to work.*
> 
> Crawford told the BBC:
> 
> *We deregulated high-speed internet access 10 years ago and since then we've seen enormous consolidation and monopolies Left to their own devices, companies that supply internet access will charge high prices, because they face neither competition nor oversight. [BBC]*
> 
> If a market becomes a monopoly, there's often nothing whatever to force monopolists to invest in infrastructure or improve their service. *Of course, in the few places where a new competitor like Google Fiber has appeared, telecoms companies have been spooked and forced to cut prices and improve service in response to the new competition.* But that isn't happening everywhere. It's very expensive for a new competitor to come into a market, like telecommunications, that has very high barriers to entry. Laying copper wire or fiber optic cable is expensive, and if the incumbent companies won't grant new competitors access to their infrastructure, then the free market forces of competition don't work and infrastructure stagnates, even as consumer anger and desire for competition rises due to poor service.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get tired of being right.  This is why American internet access sucks because there isnt any competition and the companies dont give a shit.  Since they have it locked down they jack up the prices and keep services wack and give you the finger
Click to expand...


Because Obama's NSA is sucking up all the bandwidth silly.


----------



## longknife

Harry Dresden said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a quadruple boot setup, three are linux based, XP on another partition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's your problem. The NT Kernal is outdated and XP doesn't use the graphics hardware directly to render pages. All modern versions of Linux do, as do Longhorn based systems.  XP will actually use your CPU to render pages.
> 
> 
> 
> Linux uses OpenGL, which is inferior to DirectX. For something like rendering 2D web pages that's fine. For 3D it's so far behind Direct 3D that it's not even funny.
> 
> And only Firefox crashes. Never had Chromium crash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm on Wheezy (stable) but I didn't have issues with the various Ubuntus, Mint, etc. until I tweaked them into not working. Windows takes a long time to boot so I seldom use it. Maybe they fixed that in 7?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I used to run Mint, but I actually like the Unity GUI, so I've been running Ubuntu for a couple of years.
> 
> Back in the XP days, I ran Linux 90% of the time. Since Longhorn came out, I boot into Linux once every couple of weeks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And only Firefox crashes. Never had Chromium crash.*
> 
> i hear ya....same for me....
Click to expand...


Amen! Time after time. Freezes up and I can't exit. Going to convert all my bookmarks to Opera.


----------



## WinterBorn

Kosh said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Antiquated rules for dealing with fiber optics, pay scales that are way out of line with the area, and* requirements for employment that can cripple production*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Record profits can't be achieved?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must hate unions too, do you?
Click to expand...


He is just looking for a reason to whine about the poor oppressed worker.


----------



## OnePercenter

WinterBorn said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Antiquated rules for dealing with fiber optics, pay scales that are way out of line with the area, and* requirements for employment that can cripple production*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Record profits can't be achieved?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reading a lot into that, aren't you?
> 
> Perhaps if you had asked for more info I could have explained that the contracts required 40% of our workforce be locals and less than 50% be subcontractors.
> 
> In the area where we worked there were virtually no experienced linemen, drillers or fiber splicers.  So the ones we brought in could not bring their people with them.  A lineman with a familiar groundman work as a team.  To require that half of that team be dismisses just to provide work for a local when the project is only going to last 2 or 3 years, is ridiculous.
> 
> Also, the contracts required we pay the prevailing wage.  Not a problem.  Except the prevailing wage they set is FAR above what the local economy provides.  In one area the average household income is around $16k.   The requirements for what we pay requires that we pay a groundman, with no experience, $22 an hour.  With no overtime that comes to around $45k a year.
> 
> The rules for dealing with the fiber date back to the early 1960s.  We were not allowed to handle the fiber if the temperatures were below 30 degrees.  That is lunacy and there is no recourse that won't take years to complete.
Click to expand...


Other than the $22/hour requirement which cuts the windfall the company was expecting; What's the problem?


----------



## OnePercenter

Kosh said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Antiquated rules for dealing with fiber optics, pay scales that are way out of line with the area, and* requirements for employment that can cripple production*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Record profits can't be achieved?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must hate unions too, do you?
Click to expand...


I'm pro Union! 

My second company (printing) was a Union company and I had the BEST worker any employer could hope for. When a vacation came up, the local sent a well trained worker to take over who hit the floor running.

From my experience Union workers are hard working Americans, which is why I cringe each time one of you 'Ive got mine, so fuck everyone else sociopaths' Union bashes.


----------



## Jarlaxle

You truly are remarkably stupid!


----------



## CrusaderFrank

OnePercenter said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> nope..Not yet. Next up..Fiber.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fiber is already in use.
> 
> People don't understand networks. Claims that 4G or 5G will be the "next thing" reveals that sort of ignorance. The notion that you hit that 4G tower and your signal bounces along from cell to cell until that porn site comes up is absurd.
> 
> The 4G tower you hit routs to the closest CO and then rides on the same fiber backbone as everything else does. Fiber is and will remain the means for high speed communication into the foreseeable future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fiber is already in use. Fiber has it's place over long distances where curvature of the earth is an issue, but WiFi is much faster and can handle more information than fiber.
Click to expand...


What? WiFi is faster than fiber? What?

Sent from my Chinese Supercomputer made from XBox parts Bush sent to China


----------



## The T

OnePercenter said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> nope..Not yet. Next up..Fiber.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fiber is already in use.
> 
> People don't understand networks. Claims that 4G or 5G will be the "next thing" reveals that sort of ignorance. The notion that you hit that 4G tower and your signal bounces along from cell to cell until that porn site comes up is absurd.
> 
> The 4G tower you hit routs to the closest CO and then rides on the same fiber backbone as everything else does. Fiber is and will remain the means for high speed communication into the foreseeable future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fiber is already in use. Fiber has it's place over long distances where curvature of the earth is an issue, but WiFi is much faster and can handle more information than fiber.
Click to expand...

YOU know nothing of spectrum, do you?


----------



## RKMBrown

OnePercenter said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> nope..Not yet. Next up..Fiber.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fiber is already in use.
> 
> People don't understand networks. Claims that 4G or 5G will be the "next thing" reveals that sort of ignorance. The notion that you hit that 4G tower and your signal bounces along from cell to cell until that porn site comes up is absurd.
> 
> The 4G tower you hit routs to the closest CO and then rides on the same fiber backbone as everything else does. Fiber is and will remain the means for high speed communication into the foreseeable future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fiber is already in use. Fiber has it's place over long distances where curvature of the earth is an issue, but WiFi is much faster and can handle more information than fiber.
Click to expand...

Try again.  Fiber is many orders of magnitude faster, and can handle many orders of magnitude more information than "WiFi." Focused Microwave point to point is better than WiFi but still inferior to fiber optics.  To be more specific a typical pair of fiber optic lines will give you 2,000,000,000,000 bits up and down, WiFi will give you 8,000,000 bits up and down.

To be fair there has been a lot of false advertising in the media about wireless and WiFi.


----------



## WinterBorn

OnePercenter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Record profits can't be achieved?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reading a lot into that, aren't you?
> 
> Perhaps if you had asked for more info I could have explained that the contracts required 40% of our workforce be locals and less than 50% be subcontractors.
> 
> In the area where we worked there were virtually no experienced linemen, drillers or fiber splicers.  So the ones we brought in could not bring their people with them.  A lineman with a familiar groundman work as a team.  To require that half of that team be dismisses just to provide work for a local when the project is only going to last 2 or 3 years, is ridiculous.
> 
> Also, the contracts required we pay the prevailing wage.  Not a problem.  Except the prevailing wage they set is FAR above what the local economy provides.  In one area the average household income is around $16k.   The requirements for what we pay requires that we pay a groundman, with no experience, $22 an hour.  With no overtime that comes to around $45k a year.
> 
> The rules for dealing with the fiber date back to the early 1960s.  We were not allowed to handle the fiber if the temperatures were below 30 degrees.  That is lunacy and there is no recourse that won't take years to complete.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other than the $22/hour requirement which cuts the windfall the company was expecting; What's the problem?
Click to expand...


Not being able to use experienced professionals would be one additional problem.

Not being able to use subcontractors, as is typical in many utility construction projects.

And not being able to handle the fiber if the temp is below 30 degrees.  That rule alone cause countless delays for a project that started in Nov in eastern KY.



As for the $22 an hour cutting the windfall profits, you are obviously just looking for a reason to bemoan corporate America.  But the same company that is making profits is the company that will be expanding again, buy new equipment, and starting more projects with more employees.  

As for windfall profits, the company in question usually runs a profit margin of around 8-10%.   Perhaps, in your dream of dreams, they would take no profit and give it all to the poor?


----------



## WinterBorn

OnePercenter said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Record profits can't be achieved?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must hate unions too, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm pro Union!
> 
> My second company (printing) was a Union company and I had the BEST worker any employer could hope for. When a vacation came up, the local sent a well trained worker to take over who hit the floor running.
> 
> From my experience Union workers are hard working Americans, which is why I cringe each time one of you 'Ive got mine, so fuck everyone else sociopaths' Union bashes.
Click to expand...


But you have no problem insinuating that the project I discussed are all about oppressing the workers and robbing them.  Funny how that works.


----------



## Plasmaball

Here?s What Lack Of Broadband Competition Looks Like In Map Form ? Consumerist

this is a good break down of the situation. It even covers New york city. There isnt competition at all. Your choices ares slim and rates have stalled.


----------



## ron4342

Edgetho said:


> You're wrong. But... You're a dimocrap, which means you're stupid.
> 
> Ask yourself why Europe uses 220 Volt systems and we use 110.
> 
> If you can answer that, you'll have the answer to our slower internet.
> 
> XXXXX


It is truly amazing how little you know and how often you prove it.  What a miserable life you must have when everything always comes back to your hatred of others.  What a miserable world you must live in.  I feel sorry for you and people like you.


----------



## thereisnospoon

OnePercenter said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Record profits can't be achieved?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must hate unions too, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm pro Union!
> 
> My second company (printing) was a Union company and I had the BEST worker any employer could hope for. When a vacation came up, the local sent a well trained worker to take over who hit the floor running.
> 
> From my experience Union workers are hard working Americans, which is why I cringe each time one of you 'Ive got mine, so fuck everyone else sociopaths' Union bashes.
Click to expand...

"I'm pro Union!"
How's that nearly empty room?
The I've got mine pervades the union worker world.
Especially in the public sector.
Case and point. 
When NJ passed annual tax levy caps at 2%, the first and ONLY people to protest were public employees. 
Their screech? "What about our raises!!!!?"
These people don;t give a shit about where their grossly overpaid wages, benefits and pensions come from. All they know is "I've got mine. Fuck you. Pay me."
Same goes for private sector union workers. Except the union thugs go to the business owners and bend them over a table.
There is and never was a "negotiation" between unions and employers.
The system is based on threats and intimidation.
"If you don't agree to our demands( note that there is no bargaining when a party issues a demand(, we will tell "our" workers to stay home. And the best part is you have to let them keep their jobs. Which by the way we want them to be 100% secure."
That's NOT business. It's extortion.
You will come back with a counter point. Don't bother. This is not a discussion and you're not going to change my mind.
BTW, I always had a chuckle when unionized workers claim they "work for the union" when the employer does something they don't like. But when the employer has to lay off workers or close the business, the union workers scream "those are OUR jobs"...
Oh no sir...You said you work for the union. Let them take care of you.
This is just one reason why private sector union participation is down to 7%.


----------



## thereisnospoon

OnePercenter said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> All American internet isn't slow. In Vegas I have Cox. (150 Mbps down/45Mbps up) Privately held company vs. publicly held.
> 
> OBTW; The future is WiFi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nope..Not yet. Next up..Fiber.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WiFi is faster, cheaper, and can handle more traffic than fiber.
> 
> You can provide high speed WiFi to a 5 square mile area in 2 hours. Can you do that with fiber?
> 
> Almost every new office building being built is without the miles of CAT5.
> 
> My office in California has 10 work stations with zero cable.
Click to expand...


Wanna bet?.
Wifi costs more in lost production because it is so susceptible to traffic issues and bandwidth use limitations. 
I will give you an example. The arena where I do stats for a pro hockey team has wifi.
Last year during the NCAA tournament, I could see people on their cell phones using the wifi in the building to get scores or view content. It made it difficult for us to use the internet to send updates to the League website. 
Fiber is the future. 
Unless of course the wifi systems be improved to handle more capacity.
And to charge bandwidth hogs stiff financial penalties.


----------



## thereisnospoon

OnePercenter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Record profits can't be achieved?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reading a lot into that, aren't you?
> 
> Perhaps if you had asked for more info I could have explained that the contracts required 40% of our workforce be locals and less than 50% be subcontractors.
> 
> In the area where we worked there were virtually no experienced linemen, drillers or fiber splicers.  So the ones we brought in could not bring their people with them.  A lineman with a familiar groundman work as a team.  To require that half of that team be dismisses just to provide work for a local when the project is only going to last 2 or 3 years, is ridiculous.
> 
> Also, the contracts required we pay the prevailing wage.  Not a problem.  Except the prevailing wage they set is FAR above what the local economy provides.  In one area the average household income is around $16k.   The requirements for what we pay requires that we pay a groundman, with no experience, $22 an hour.  With no overtime that comes to around $45k a year.
> 
> The rules for dealing with the fiber date back to the early 1960s.  We were not allowed to handle the fiber if the temperatures were below 30 degrees.  That is lunacy and there is no recourse that won't take years to complete.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other than the $22/hour requirement which cuts the windfall the company was expecting; What's the problem?
Click to expand...


Everything is relative.
The wages for the workers should reflect the prevailing market wage in a given area. 
Stupid, archaic work rules kill productivity and profitability. 
If profit cannot realized, business will not invest. No investment. No jobs period.


----------



## OnePercenter

CrusaderFrank said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fiber is already in use.
> 
> People don't understand networks. Claims that 4G or 5G will be the "next thing" reveals that sort of ignorance. The notion that you hit that 4G tower and your signal bounces along from cell to cell until that porn site comes up is absurd.
> 
> The 4G tower you hit routs to the closest CO and then rides on the same fiber backbone as everything else does. Fiber is and will remain the means for high speed communication into the foreseeable future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fiber is already in use. Fiber has it's place over long distances where curvature of the earth is an issue, but WiFi is much faster and can handle more information than fiber.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What? WiFi is faster than fiber? What?
> 
> Sent from my Chinese Supercomputer made from XBox parts Bush sent to China
Click to expand...


WiFi travels at the speed of light. Fiber, under controlled displays is 97% the speed of light.


----------



## Iceweasel

OnePercenter said:


> WiFi travels at the speed of light. Fiber, under controlled displays is 97% the speed of light.


Radio waves travel at the speed of light? I'm going to assume that you aren't a physicist.


----------



## WinterBorn

OnePercenter said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fiber is already in use. Fiber has it's place over long distances where curvature of the earth is an issue, but WiFi is much faster and can handle more information than fiber.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What? WiFi is faster than fiber? What?
> 
> Sent from my Chinese Supercomputer made from XBox parts Bush sent to China
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WiFi travels at the speed of light. Fiber, under controlled displays is 97% the speed of light.
Click to expand...


Most people do not realize that copper is often faster than fiber.

But the speed is not the issue.  Fiber can handle so much more volume.


----------



## thereisnospoon

OnePercenter said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fiber is already in use. Fiber has it's place over long distances where curvature of the earth is an issue, but WiFi is much faster and can handle more information than fiber.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What? WiFi is faster than fiber? What?
> 
> Sent from my Chinese Supercomputer made from XBox parts Bush sent to China
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WiFi travels at the speed of light. Fiber, under controlled displays is 97% the speed of light.
Click to expand...


And? Sorry. There are bandwidth capacities and traffic issues which plague wireless communications. Those fixes are very expensive.


----------



## WinterBorn

thereisnospoon said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> What? WiFi is faster than fiber? What?
> 
> Sent from my Chinese Supercomputer made from XBox parts Bush sent to China
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WiFi travels at the speed of light. Fiber, under controlled displays is 97% the speed of light.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And? Sorry. There are bandwidth capacities and traffic issues which plague wireless communications. Those fixes are very expensive.
Click to expand...


I agree.  While Wifi is handy, the capabilities of fiber make it the best choice.


----------



## WinterBorn

OnePercenter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really..Can you give some examples of the most frustrating issues?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antiquated rules for dealing with fiber optics, pay scales that are way out of line with the area, and* requirements for employment that can cripple production*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Record profits can't be achieved?
Click to expand...


I'm curious, do you agree with the idea that gov't stimulus money should carry rules requiring unskilled labor to be paid well above the local average incomes?

I have no problem with minimum wage, but $22 an hour for unskilled labor is ridiculous.


----------



## Uncensored2008

OnePercenter said:


> WiFi is faster, cheaper, and can handle more traffic than fiber.



Is that right?

Do you mean 802.11G?  Maybe N?



> You can provide high speed WiFi to a 5 square mile area in 2 hours. Can you do that with fiber?



Oh really?

You know, there is a reason you sit in moms basement smoking dope and playing Call of Duty, and it isn't because you know so much.

802.11 B/G/N (AKA WiFi) has a broadcast range of 20 meters, shit fer brains.



> Almost every new office building being built is without the miles of CAT5.
> 
> My office in California has 10 work stations with zero cable.



Bullshit. And you don't work in an office. You might be able to get a job at McDonalds, but you can't pass the drug test.


----------



## Uncensored2008

CrusaderFrank said:


> What? WiFi is faster than fiber? What?
> 
> Sent from my Chinese Supercomputer made from XBox parts Bush sent to China



Well yeah, 54mbps kicks the shit out of 10Gb fiber.....


----------



## longknife

Well, it appears the trolls are trying to hijack this thread with their political diatribes.


----------



## GISMYS

Bottomline= NSA needs time to set up to record your email and posts!!! BEWARE!


----------



## OnePercenter

Iceweasel said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> WiFi travels at the speed of light. Fiber, under controlled displays is 97% the speed of light.
> 
> 
> 
> Radio waves travel at the speed of light? I'm going to assume that you aren't a physicist.
Click to expand...


Yes, 186,000 miles per second.


----------



## Iceweasel

OnePercenter said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> WiFi travels at the speed of light. Fiber, under controlled displays is 97% the speed of light.
> 
> 
> 
> Radio waves travel at the speed of light? I'm going to assume that you aren't a physicist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, 186,000 miles per second.
Click to expand...

In a vacuum, yes. But you have the frequency to consider as well, correct?


----------



## OnePercenter

WinterBorn said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> What? WiFi is faster than fiber? What?
> 
> Sent from my Chinese Supercomputer made from XBox parts Bush sent to China
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WiFi travels at the speed of light. Fiber, under controlled displays is 97% the speed of light.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most people do not realize that copper is often faster than fiber.
> 
> But the speed is not the issue.  Fiber can handle so much more volume.
Click to expand...


Speed and volume are the issue. With the demise of the PC and lap top, the next three to five years are going to be exciting.

My predictions:

1. In five years WiFi will carry twice the information as fiber.

2. ATT and Verizon will be in the cable (less) TV business.


----------



## OnePercenter

WinterBorn said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Antiquated rules for dealing with fiber optics, pay scales that are way out of line with the area, and* requirements for employment that can cripple production*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Record profits can't be achieved?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm curious, do you agree with the idea that gov't stimulus money should carry rules requiring unskilled labor to be paid well above the local average incomes?
> 
> I have no problem with minimum wage, but $22 an hour for unskilled labor is ridiculous.
Click to expand...


Yes. You need to remember that every dollar spent by the government to people returns $1.70 to the economy. Better than the 100's of billions for Walmart and their big box buddies which returned zip.


----------



## WinterBorn

OnePercenter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Record profits can't be achieved?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious, do you agree with the idea that gov't stimulus money should carry rules requiring unskilled labor to be paid well above the local average incomes?
> 
> I have no problem with minimum wage, but $22 an hour for unskilled labor is ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. You need to remember that every dollar spent by the government to people returns $1.70 to the economy. Better than the 100's of billions for Walmart and their big box buddies which returned zip.
Click to expand...


I was not asking about "Big box buddies".  This was about a company doing utility construction work in many areas.  The workers are the life blood of the trades.

So you like the idea that someone with no skills makes $45k a year in an area where the average income is half that?  And the people who come in with the skills, equipment, and materials to build the system have to suck up the lower profit margin so that you can feel better about where your taxes go?  lol   

And the contractors can't bid the jobs without letting go of dedicated, loyal employees who have learned the trades.  All so you can believe your tax dollars are being used in some noble fashion.  lol

The guys being hired at the inflated rate not only get a job with benefits, they learn a trade they can continue to use, if they are willing to travel.  Considering the job markets in these rural areas, they will either have to travel or live on the gov't teat anyway.  

But it is nice to see that you care so much about unskilled labor and so little about those who have busted their ass, travelled away from home, and learned their trade.


----------



## Uncensored2008

OnePercenter said:


> Yes. You need to remember that every dollar spent by the government to people returns $1.70 to the economy. Better than the 100's of billions for Walmart and their big box buddies which returned zip.



Is the reason you sit in moms basement smoking dope that you are mentally retarded? Or has all the dope eaten away your brain?


----------



## Iceweasel

OnePercenter said:


> You need to remember that every dollar spent by the government to people returns $1.70 to the economy.


That's a stunning revelation. We should be debt free by now.


----------



## francoHFW

OP- Same reason the whole country is falling apart and behind, Reaganism and brainwashed RWers don't allpw for investment in the country or it's people, only windfalls for the greedy idiot mega rich. Shortsighted idiocy.


----------



## thereisnospoon

OnePercenter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Record profits can't be achieved?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious, do you agree with the idea that gov't stimulus money should carry rules requiring unskilled labor to be paid well above the local average incomes?
> 
> I have no problem with minimum wage, but $22 an hour for unskilled labor is ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. You need to remember that every dollar spent by the government to people returns $1.70 to the economy. Better than the 100's of billions for Walmart and their big box buddies which returned zip.
Click to expand...


That is not true.
Secondly, if companies are required to pay artificially set wages, they will simply add the cost to their products/services.
When wages are artificially set above market rate, the short term may look good, but long term this practice is inflationary.
The marketplace should ALWAYS determine wages and prices.
For our economy to function properly, there must be balance.
I have no idea who told you government spending stimulates the economy on a 1.7 to 1 ratio. 
You'll have to provide some facts on this wonderful news.
If what you say is true, then why isn't the income tax rate 100%? Hell, we'd al;l be swimming in riches.
Well, you have a homework assignment...Go get those facts.
Oh, no blogs. No opinion pieces. No nonsense from other sources.
Straight facts.


----------



## thereisnospoon

francoHFW said:


> OP- Same reason the whole country is falling apart and behind, Reaganism and brainwashed RWers don't allpw for investment in the country or it's people, only windfalls for the greedy idiot mega rich. Shortsighted idiocy.



The country is falling apart? I forgot. On who's watch are we?
Why I bother to respond to your whiny juvenile bullshit is a miracle.
I wish that ship in your avatar would fire upon your house. That would be hilarious.


----------



## thereisnospoon

WinterBorn said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> What? WiFi is faster than fiber? What?
> 
> Sent from my Chinese Supercomputer made from XBox parts Bush sent to China
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WiFi travels at the speed of light. Fiber, under controlled displays is 97% the speed of light.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most people do not realize that copper is often faster than fiber.
> 
> But the speed is not the issue.  Fiber can handle so much more volume.
Click to expand...


Correct.


----------



## thereisnospoon

OnePercenter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> WiFi travels at the speed of light. Fiber, under controlled displays is 97% the speed of light.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most people do not realize that copper is often faster than fiber.
> 
> But the speed is not the issue.  Fiber can handle so much more volume.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speed and volume are the issue. With the demise of the PC and lap top, the next three to five years are going to be exciting.
> 
> My predictions:
> 
> 1. In five years WiFi will carry twice the information as fiber.
> 
> 2. ATT and Verizon will be in the cable (less) TV business.
Click to expand...


Perhaps. But not in the foreseeable future. First, the cost is going to be prohibitive. Wireless companies are going to look upon this technology as a cash cow. And why shouldn't they? They are publicly held.


----------



## francoHFW

thereisnospoon said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> OP- Same reason the whole country is falling apart and behind, Reaganism and brainwashed RWers don't allpw for investment in the country or it's people, only windfalls for the greedy idiot mega rich. Shortsighted idiocy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The country is falling apart? I forgot. On who's watch are we?
> Why I bother to respond to your whiny juvenile bullshit is a miracle.
> I wish that ship in your avatar would fire upon your house. That would be hilarious.
Click to expand...


Could you be any more shortsighted and ADD...we're talking about 25-30 years of Reaganist tax rates...lol. Try some actual facts...

Voodoo wrecked and IS WRECKING the nonrich to the point where demand for products and services has dried up, along with their savings...before the corruption and cronyism housing and credit meltdown of 2008- while the rich have quadrupled their wealth...

1. WORKERS past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labors share of income (1992 = 100%):1950 = 101%1960 = 105%1970 = 105%1980 = 105%  Reagan1990 = 100%2000 = 96%2007 = 92%A 13% drop since 1980A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.Share of National Income going to Top 10%:1950 = 35%1960 = 34%1970 = 34%1980 = 34%  Reagan1990 = 40%2000 = 47%2007 = 50% 
TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.Household Debt as percentage of GDP:1965 = 46%1970 = 45%1980 = 50%  Reagan1990 = 61%2000 = 69%2007 = 95% An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.1950 = 6.0%1960 = 7.0%1970 = 8.5%1980 = 10.0%  Reagan1982 = 11.2%  Peak1990 = 7.0%2000 = 2.0%2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

4. Household Debt as percentage of GDP:1965 = 46%1970 = 45%1980 = 50%  Reagan1990 = 61%2000 = 69%2007 = 95%A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%and the bottom 80%:1980 = 10%2003 = 56%A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.The Probabilityy of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:1945 = 12%1958 = 6%1990 = 3%2000 = 2%A 10% Decrease.

Links:1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Researc...s/No7Nov04.pdf1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)2  Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez | The White House3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/imag...ving_thumb.gif3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/...&LastYear=20104 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php...or-debt-of-gdp4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--June 6, 20135/6 = Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insiderhttp://factleft.com/2011/03/28/the-demise-of-the-american-middle-class-in-numbers/


----------



## Uncensored2008

thereisnospoon said:


> Perhaps. But not in the foreseeable future. First, the cost is going to be prohibitive. Wireless companies are going to look upon this technology as a cash cow. And why shouldn't they? They are publicly held.



WiFi has a specific meaning, the 802.11 standards. 3G and 4G are wireless technologies, but are not "WiFi."

Onepercenter is simply an ignorant blowhard, bloviating on yet another subject he has no knowledge of.


----------



## thereisnospoon

WinterBorn said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious, do you agree with the idea that gov't stimulus money should carry rules requiring unskilled labor to be paid well above the local average incomes?
> 
> I have no problem with minimum wage, but $22 an hour for unskilled labor is ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. You need to remember that every dollar spent by the government to people returns $1.70 to the economy. Better than the 100's of billions for Walmart and their big box buddies which returned zip.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was not asking about "Big box buddies".  This was about a company doing utility construction work in many areas.  The workers are the life blood of the trades.
> 
> So you like the idea that someone with no skills makes $45k a year in an area where the average income is half that?  And the people who come in with the skills, equipment, and materials to build the system have to suck up the lower profit margin so that you can feel better about where your taxes go?  lol
> 
> And the contractors can't bid the jobs without letting go of dedicated, loyal employees who have learned the trades.  All so you can believe your tax dollars are being used in some noble fashion.  lol
> 
> The guys being hired at the inflated rate not only get a job with benefits, they learn a trade they can continue to use, if they are willing to travel.  Considering the job markets in these rural areas, they will either have to travel or live on the gov't teat anyway.
> 
> But it is nice to see that you care so much about unskilled labor and so little about those who have busted their ass, travelled away from home, and learned their trade.
Click to expand...


Yeah...These dunderheads are perfectly willing to have fast food joints and convenience stores pay stratospheric wages but when it comes to stuff like this, it's somehow different.
I really get sick and tired of these lefties who've never so much as dipped their toe into the business world claiming to know what's best for business.


----------



## Jarlaxle

OnePercenter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> WiFi travels at the speed of light. Fiber, under controlled displays is 97% the speed of light.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most people do not realize that copper is often faster than fiber.
> 
> But the speed is not the issue.  Fiber can handle so much more volume.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speed and volume are the issue. With the demise of the PC and lap top, the next three to five years are going to be exciting.
> 
> My predictions:
> 
> 1. In five years WiFi will carry twice the information as fiber.
> 
> 2. ATT and Verizon will be in the cable (less) TV business.
Click to expand...


Verizon is in the TV business RIGHT NOW!


----------



## AvgGuyIA

Idiots and their smartphones.  They can't stay off them for 5minutes even while driving.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Iceweasel said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to remember that every dollar spent by the government to people returns $1.70 to the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a stunning revelation. We should be debt free by now.
Click to expand...


Could not have stated it better myself.
I once had a conversation with a guy who tried to convince me that the government needs more of our income to "do good things"....
When I queried at about the cost of removing capital from the private sector he actually denied the need for a private sector.
These are the kind of people that vote for liberal democrats. Santa Claus.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Jarlaxle said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people do not realize that copper is often faster than fiber.
> 
> But the speed is not the issue.  Fiber can handle so much more volume.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speed and volume are the issue. With the demise of the PC and lap top, the next three to five years are going to be exciting.
> 
> My predictions:
> 
> 1. In five years WiFi will carry twice the information as fiber.
> 
> 2. ATT and Verizon will be in the cable (less) TV business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Verizon is in the TV business RIGHT NOW!
Click to expand...

Via fiber.
And wifi...Neither of which are being expanded.
IPTV is the next thing in the works. Via wireline.


----------



## American4Americ

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Interesting that the conservative posters here are arguing in favor of monopolies. You have a leftist OP making the Capitalist argument for more competition and the right wingers rebuffing him.  I must have fallen into the Bizarro World



USMB is bizarro world... conservatives here will frequently speak out against anything any leftist has to say. Why? Because they are a leftist. Everyone here is also prone to the most amusing flights of hypocrisy possible, and most will not even notice.


----------



## thereisnospoon

francoHFW said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> OP- Same reason the whole country is falling apart and behind, Reaganism and brainwashed RWers don't allpw for investment in the country or it's people, only windfalls for the greedy idiot mega rich. Shortsighted idiocy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The country is falling apart? I forgot. On who's watch are we?
> Why I bother to respond to your whiny juvenile bullshit is a miracle.
> I wish that ship in your avatar would fire upon your house. That would be hilarious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could you be any more shortsighted and ADD...we're talking about 25-30 years of Reaganist tax rates...lol. Try some actual facts...
> 
> Voodoo wrecked and IS WRECKING the nonrich to the point where demand for products and services has dried up, along with their savings...before the corruption and cronyism housing and credit meltdown of 2008- while the rich have quadrupled their wealth...
> 
> 1. WORKERS past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labors share of income (1992 = 100%):1950 = 101%1960 = 105%1970 = 105%1980 = 105%  Reagan1990 = 100%2000 = 96%2007 = 92%A 13% drop since 1980A 13% drop since 1980
> 
> 2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.Share of National Income going to Top 10%:1950 = 35%1960 = 34%1970 = 34%1980 = 34%  Reagan1990 = 40%2000 = 47%2007 = 50%
> TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.Household Debt as percentage of GDP:1965 = 46%1970 = 45%1980 = 50%  Reagan1990 = 61%2000 = 69%2007 = 95% An increase of 16% since Reagan.
> 
> 3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.1950 = 6.0%1960 = 7.0%1970 = 8.5%1980 = 10.0%  Reagan1982 = 11.2%  Peak1990 = 7.0%2000 = 2.0%2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)
> 
> 4. Household Debt as percentage of GDP:1965 = 46%1970 = 45%1980 = 50%  Reagan1990 = 61%2000 = 69%2007 = 95%A 45% increase after 1980.
> 
> 5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%and the bottom 80%:1980 = 10%2003 = 56%A 5.6 times increase.
> 
> 6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.The Probabilityy of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:1945 = 12%1958 = 6%1990 = 3%2000 = 2%A 10% Decrease.
> 
> Links:1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Researc...s/No7Nov04.pdf1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)2  Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez | The White House3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/imag...ving_thumb.gif3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/...&LastYear=20104 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php...or-debt-of-gdp4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--June 6, 20135/6 = Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insiderhttp://factleft.com/2011/03/28/the-demise-of-the-american-middle-class-in-numbers/
Click to expand...


So?
Business has reduced labor costs with technology which increases production.
People save less because they expect more. They require more toys.
BTW genius, home ownership has increased two fold since the 50's. Wonder how that was accomplished.
There is no "share"...In this country we are free to pursue anything we wish and we also have the freedom to do our very best. 
While you complain, the country despite the occupant in the White House, most of us are moving forward. 
You will keep complaining.


----------



## francoHFW

Idiot. lol. See sig para 1- THAT IS NOT MOVING FORWARD.

So how come broadband costs 8 dollars a month in the EU, corporate dupes...and EVERYONE in Korea has fibre, Pub dupes...


----------



## WinterBorn

thereisnospoon said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The country is falling apart? I forgot. On who's watch are we?
> Why I bother to respond to your whiny juvenile bullshit is a miracle.
> I wish that ship in your avatar would fire upon your house. That would be hilarious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you be any more shortsighted and ADD...we're talking about 25-30 years of Reaganist tax rates...lol. Try some actual facts...
> 
> Voodoo wrecked and IS WRECKING the nonrich to the point where demand for products and services has dried up, along with their savings...before the corruption and cronyism housing and credit meltdown of 2008- while the rich have quadrupled their wealth...
> 
> 1. WORKERS past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labors share of income (1992 = 100%):1950 = 101%1960 = 105%1970 = 105%1980 = 105%  Reagan1990 = 100%2000 = 96%2007 = 92%A 13% drop since 1980A 13% drop since 1980
> 
> 2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.Share of National Income going to Top 10%:1950 = 35%1960 = 34%1970 = 34%1980 = 34%  Reagan1990 = 40%2000 = 47%2007 = 50%
> TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.Household Debt as percentage of GDP:1965 = 46%1970 = 45%1980 = 50%  Reagan1990 = 61%2000 = 69%2007 = 95% An increase of 16% since Reagan.
> 
> 3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.1950 = 6.0%1960 = 7.0%1970 = 8.5%1980 = 10.0%  Reagan1982 = 11.2%  Peak1990 = 7.0%2000 = 2.0%2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)
> 
> 4. Household Debt as percentage of GDP:1965 = 46%1970 = 45%1980 = 50%  Reagan1990 = 61%2000 = 69%2007 = 95%A 45% increase after 1980.
> 
> 5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%and the bottom 80%:1980 = 10%2003 = 56%A 5.6 times increase.
> 
> 6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.The Probabilityy of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:1945 = 12%1958 = 6%1990 = 3%2000 = 2%A 10% Decrease.
> 
> Links:1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Researc...s/No7Nov04.pdf1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)2  Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez | The White House3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/imag...ving_thumb.gif3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/...&LastYear=20104 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php...or-debt-of-gdp4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--June 6, 20135/6 = Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insiderhttp://factleft.com/2011/03/28/the-demise-of-the-american-middle-class-in-numbers/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?
> Business has reduced labor costs with technology which increases production.
> People save less because they expect more. They require more toys.
> BTW genius, home ownership has increased two fold since the 50's. Wonder how that was accomplished.
> There is no "share"...In this country we are free to pursue anything we wish and we also have the freedom to do our very best.
> While you complain, the country despite the occupant in the White House, most of us are moving forward.
> You will keep complaining.
Click to expand...


You bring up an interesting point.  Modern technology has done more to displace the worker and lower average worker's wages than anything else.


----------



## OnePercenter

thereisnospoon said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speed and volume are the issue. With the demise of the PC and lap top, the next three to five years are going to be exciting.
> 
> My predictions:
> 
> 1. In five years WiFi will carry twice the information as fiber.
> 
> 2. ATT and Verizon will be in the cable (less) TV business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Verizon is in the TV business RIGHT NOW!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Via fiber.
> And wifi...Neither of which are being expanded.
> IPTV is the next thing in the works. Via wireline.
Click to expand...


The two companies that I angel invest will make $55M in revenue this year by NOT expanding WiFi.


----------



## francoHFW

winterborn said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francohfw said:
> 
> 
> 
> could you be any more shortsighted and add...we're talking about 25-30 years of reaganist tax rates...lol. Try some actual facts...
> 
> Voodoo wrecked and is wrecking the nonrich to the point where demand for products and services has dried up, along with their savings...before the corruption and cronyism housing and credit meltdown of 2008- while the rich have quadrupled their wealth...
> 
> 1. Workers past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.but after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labors share of income (1992 = 100%):1950 = 101%1960 = 105%1970 = 105%1980 = 105%  reagan1990 = 100%2000 = 96%2007 = 92%a 13% drop since 1980a 13% drop since 1980
> 
> 2. The top 10% get a larger share.share of national income going to top 10%:1950 = 35%1960 = 34%1970 = 34%1980 = 34%  reagan1990 = 40%2000 = 47%2007 = 50%
> to make up for the loss.household debt as percentage of gdp:1965 = 46%1970 = 45%1980 = 50%  reagan1990 = 61%2000 = 69%2007 = 95% an increase of 16% since reagan.
> 
> 3. Workers compensated for the loss of income by spending their savings.the savings rose up to reagan and fell during and after.1950 = 6.0%1960 = 7.0%1970 = 8.5%1980 = 10.0%  reagan1982 = 11.2%  peak1990 = 7.0%2000 = 2.0%2006 = -1.1% (negative = withdrawing from savings)
> 
> 4. Household debt as percentage of gdp:1965 = 46%1970 = 45%1980 = 50%  reagan1990 = 61%2000 = 69%2007 = 95%a 45% increase after 1980.
> 
> 5. So the gap between the richest and the poorest has grown.gap between the share of capital income earned by the top 1%and the bottom 80%:1980 = 10%2003 = 56%a 5.6 times increase.
> 
> 6. And the american dream is gone.the probability of moving up from the bottom 40% to the top 40%:1945 = 12%1958 = 6%1990 = 3%2000 = 2%a 10% decrease.
> 
> Links:1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/researc...s/no7nov04.pdf1 = clipboard01.jpg (image)2  congratulations to emmanuel saez | the white house3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/imag...ving_thumb.gif3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/...&lastyear=20104 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php...or-debt-of-gdp4 = frb: Z.1 release--financial accounts of the united states--june 6, 20135/6 = wealth and inequality in america - business insiderhttp://factleft.com/2011/03/28/the-demise-of-the-american-middle-class-in-numbers/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so?
> Business has reduced labor costs with technology which increases production.
> People save less because they expect more. They require more toys.
> Btw genius, home ownership has increased two fold since the 50's. Wonder how that was accomplished.
> There is no "share"...in this country we are free to pursue anything we wish and we also have the freedom to do our very best.
> While you complain, the country despite the occupant in the white house, most of us are moving forward.
> You will keep complaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you bring up an interesting point.  Modern technology has done more to displace the worker and lower average worker's wages than anything else.
Click to expand...


re home ownership- was that before the pub home ownership bubble exploded, einstein lol...

So when tech ruins manual labor jobs, pubs are right there with great education and training, right... Actually, that's the part of nafta, etc, they welch on, dupes...


----------



## francoHFW

They also welch on ALL infrastructure investment, including broadband...STUPID, GREEDY A-HOLES...Dems end up having to do it, hater dupes...big spenders my ass, just actually want the best for the country. READ SOMETHING.


----------



## Imperious

longknife said:


> I don't know about the rest of you but I get totally frustrated with the slowness of browsing the internet on forums such as this. Whether it's Firefox, or Opera, or Chrome, that stupid little circle at the top keeps going and nothing happens.
> 
> It may be because I'm still using Vista.
> 
> [Just counted 3.5 seconds to go from quick reply to advanced]



Sounds like a fun adventure, can I join?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Jarlaxle said:


> Verizon is in the TV business RIGHT NOW!



Yep, using fiber...


----------



## Uncensored2008

Imperious said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about the rest of you but I get totally frustrated with the slowness of browsing the internet on forums such as this. Whether it's Firefox, or Opera, or Chrome, that stupid little circle at the top keeps going and nothing happens.
> 
> It may be because I'm still using Vista.
> 
> [Just counted 3.5 seconds to go from quick reply to advanced]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a fun adventure, can I join?
Click to expand...



I found your leader!


----------

