3 ms·
So you think the broadband infrastructure should be nationalized, but not treated as a utility? That seems inconsistent. Anyway, I think Andreessen's argument
by ScottBurson 10y ago
So you think the broadband infrastructure should be nationalized, but not treated as a utility? That seems inconsistent.
Anyway, I think Andreessen's argument is greatly exaggerated. 20 years ago I had ISDN at 128kb, if memory serves; now I have a cable modem that bursts to something like 90Mb. That's a CAGR of 39%, or a factor of 2.7 every 3 years. Give me gigabit fiber and I'll be happy as a clam for years to come. (I don't expect my cable speed to increase significantly from this point either; that 39% CAGR is not going to be maintained.)
- kalleboo 10y agoI got 100 Mbps in 2005, 1 Gbps in 2016. The same fiber ought to scale fine another order of magnitude to 10 Gbps in 10 years. Fierce competition made sense in the 90's and 00's when all the last mile technologies were duking it out. Now we know that DSL and Coax cable don't have a future. It'll be either wireless or fiber, and you just can't go wrong with fiber.
- RugnirViking 10y ago'I got 100 Mbps in 2005, 1 Gbps in 2016.' Where the heck do you live? 100mbps is like science fiction where I live, and we are all on fiber at like 10mbps
- kalleboo 10y agoSweden before, Japan now
- dpark 10y ago> we are all on fiber at like 10mbps Where the heck do you live that runs fiber to the home but can't deliver better than 10mbps?
- RugnirViking 10y agoHere in the UK the max I have ever heard of is 200mbps in inner cities and everywhere else its basically 10mbps or nothing
- dpark 10y agoEverywhere else is presumably not fiber in that case.
- RugnirViking 10y agoIt is claimed 'fiber' by the companies, and everyone pays because of the natural monopoly of utilities, where everyone pays for the best service available regardless of how good it is, because everything available is not good enough