4 ms·

We didn't need anything faster than dial-up for the web of 1999. It's all the things yet unimagined that ubiquitous high speed internet would enable that's the

We didn't need anything faster than dial-up for the web of 1999. It's all the things yet unimagined that ubiquitous high speed internet would enable that's the real tragedy here. The complete failure of imagination of today's "leaders" is very disheartening.

zanny 9y ago
Modern American "conservatism" (or at least Trumpism) isn't even about holding ground on the present, its backpedaling to the past. The audience that eats up this rhetoric want to reverse entropy and will destroying anything they can to get a facsimile of it.
- tonyedgecombe 9y ago
  Your problems with monopolies and regulatory capture started way before Trump came along.
  - croon 9y ago
    But the curve got a whole lot worse.
apozem 9y ago
This is an excellent point. The FCC's shameful cowing to ISPs has a huge opportunity cost to consumers. Greater connectivity creates new business opportunities. Uber would be impossible without smartphones and reliable data. Netflix would be a DVD company without high-speed home internet. When the FCC tells us we "don't need" better internet, it forecloses whole new categories of businesses.
- rayiner 9y ago
  Re: Uber, the US has more wireless broadband subscriptions per capita, according to the OECD, than anyone but Japan and Finland (basically tied with Sweden). Re: Netflix, we just broke into the top 10 on Akamai's ranking of average connection speed. On both metrics, we blow away the other big Western democracies (the U.K., France, and Germany).
  - _asummers 9y ago
    I question the utility of average here. If I have a single gigabit user, I can dwarf a whole lot of 2-3 megabit connections. Good that we're ahead, but medians would be helpful here to give a better picture. Hopefully Akamai dealt with this somehow in their methodology.
    - mjevans 9y ago
      I agree with you that a /median/ average is more illustrative of the progress than a /mode/ average. However even better would be an actual /map/ showing you by area of ISP service, the fastest speeds (down and up) that an ISP is willing to attempt* (believe in a normal case they have a reasonable chance of success) to provide. Then from that map, weighted by population density, reaching qualitative conclusions; such as mode average based on population, or the cutoffs at 20 and 80% of the population.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- Smoosh 9y ago
  Something is very wrong here. What other business/industry is there which wants you to use less of their product at a slower rate? (only electricity companies pushing for greater efficiency comes to mind). In a healthy capitalist economy, this shouldn't happen.
  - yorwba 9y ago
    Every business that sells a tiny amount of product in a huge amount of packaging. The reasoning is the same: by keeping the cost per unit as low as the customer will tolerate, you make more profit without building out more capacity. If most customers of an ISP are currently on a 10 Mbit/s connection, do you think they'll pay 100x for 1 Gbit/s?
- smsm42 9y ago
  I'm not sure - you are implying that ISPs don't want faster internet? Why would it be in their interest not to have faster offerings?
  - speedz 9y ago
    ISPs don't want faster internet if it means they need to invest. ISPs want to maximize their profit, not the speed of their internets.
    - smsm42 9y ago
      Isn't that business model of the ISP - you invest in infrastructure and then collect profits from it, selling subscriptions? The existence of ISPs is the proof that they do want to invest - otherwise who did the investments? > ISPs want to maximize their profit, not the speed of their internets. How this is contradictory? If you have faster network, you can have more people subscribing and paying more money.
      - speedz 9y ago
        The key here is the need to invest more. The ISPs would rather milk the existing investment. It is also not a given that people would pay enough more for a faster network.
    - throwaway91111 9y ago
      Over what time frame?
  - apozem 9y ago
    I don't believe faster internet is the top priority of most American ISPs. This is the quality of a monopoly- the focus on maximizing profits. It's not that having faster internet is bad for them as much as it's a waste of time and money compared to simply milking their existing monopoly. And make no mistake, ISPs are a monopoly. Due to 1) the inherent difficulty of building a broadband network 2) a hellish patchwork of local regulations and government-granted exclusivity deals, ISPs function in a state of basic monopoly. Densely populated areas can have multiple options for high-speed internet, but the market is not bursting with competition. If you don't have to compete, what's the point of building out faster internet? Why spend more on investment without competition? Why not just focus on making as much money as possible off previous investments?
1_2__4 9y ago
Government in the US doesn't govern anymore. Period.
- stass 9y ago
  It never did, in US we are self-governed, that was the whole idea.
  - 1_2__4 9y ago
    Pedantry is unbecoming.
    - stass 9y ago
      It's not really pedantry, I'm not picking on the words, but the concept. Many here, especially a lot of people coming from places with a strong government, decry the fact that US government does very little and seemingly can't make progress. This is by design: US institutions are setup in a way so only absolutely non controversial initiatiaves would pass, while the rest would be handled by citizens themselves or smaller governments on a regional level. Such governing structure was the fundamental innovation made at the time the US was established compared to the old tyrannical governments of the past, and I find it appalling that many people here, many of whom call themselves progressives, completely miss that fact.
thirdsun 9y ago
> It's all the things yet unimagined that ubiquitous high speed internet would enable that's the real tragedy here. And let's not forget that even the things that seem normal and widely available are out of reach for many people: Video streaming, data backups and other tasks just aren't an option for people in underserved areas. Now add a whole family / household and your already inadequately met bandwith equirements multiply.

zanny 9y ago

Modern American "conservatism" (or at least Trumpism) isn't even about holding ground on the present, its backpedaling to the past. The audience that eats up this rhetoric want to reverse entropy and will destroying anything they can to get a facsimile of it.

tonyedgecombe 9y ago
Your problems with monopolies and regulatory capture started way before Trump came along.
- croon 9y ago
  But the curve got a whole lot worse.

apozem 9y ago

This is an excellent point. The FCC's shameful cowing to ISPs has a huge opportunity cost to consumers. Greater connectivity creates new business opportunities. Uber would be impossible without smartphones and reliable data. Netflix would be a DVD company without high-speed home internet. When the FCC tells us we "don't need" better internet, it forecloses whole new categories of businesses.

rayiner 9y ago
Re: Uber, the US has more wireless broadband subscriptions per capita, according to the OECD, than anyone but Japan and Finland (basically tied with Sweden). Re: Netflix, we just broke into the top 10 on Akamai's ranking of average connection speed. On both metrics, we blow away the other big Western democracies (the U.K., France, and Germany).
- _asummers 9y ago
  I question the utility of average here. If I have a single gigabit user, I can dwarf a whole lot of 2-3 megabit connections. Good that we're ahead, but medians would be helpful here to give a better picture. Hopefully Akamai dealt with this somehow in their methodology.
  - mjevans 9y ago
    I agree with you that a /median/ average is more illustrative of the progress than a /mode/ average. However even better would be an actual /map/ showing you by area of ISP service, the fastest speeds (down and up) that an ISP is willing to attempt* (believe in a normal case they have a reasonable chance of success) to provide. Then from that map, weighted by population density, reaching qualitative conclusions; such as mode average based on population, or the cutoffs at 20 and 80% of the population.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
Smoosh 9y ago
Something is very wrong here. What other business/industry is there which wants you to use less of their product at a slower rate? (only electricity companies pushing for greater efficiency comes to mind). In a healthy capitalist economy, this shouldn't happen.
- yorwba 9y ago
  Every business that sells a tiny amount of product in a huge amount of packaging. The reasoning is the same: by keeping the cost per unit as low as the customer will tolerate, you make more profit without building out more capacity. If most customers of an ISP are currently on a 10 Mbit/s connection, do you think they'll pay 100x for 1 Gbit/s?
smsm42 9y ago
I'm not sure - you are implying that ISPs don't want faster internet? Why would it be in their interest not to have faster offerings?
- speedz 9y ago
  ISPs don't want faster internet if it means they need to invest. ISPs want to maximize their profit, not the speed of their internets.
  - smsm42 9y ago
    Isn't that business model of the ISP - you invest in infrastructure and then collect profits from it, selling subscriptions? The existence of ISPs is the proof that they do want to invest - otherwise who did the investments? > ISPs want to maximize their profit, not the speed of their internets. How this is contradictory? If you have faster network, you can have more people subscribing and paying more money.
    - speedz 9y ago
      The key here is the need to invest more. The ISPs would rather milk the existing investment. It is also not a given that people would pay enough more for a faster network.
  - throwaway91111 9y ago
    Over what time frame?
- apozem 9y ago
  I don't believe faster internet is the top priority of most American ISPs. This is the quality of a monopoly- the focus on maximizing profits. It's not that having faster internet is bad for them as much as it's a waste of time and money compared to simply milking their existing monopoly. And make no mistake, ISPs are a monopoly. Due to 1) the inherent difficulty of building a broadband network 2) a hellish patchwork of local regulations and government-granted exclusivity deals, ISPs function in a state of basic monopoly. Densely populated areas can have multiple options for high-speed internet, but the market is not bursting with competition. If you don't have to compete, what's the point of building out faster internet? Why spend more on investment without competition? Why not just focus on making as much money as possible off previous investments?

1_2__4 9y ago

Government in the US doesn't govern anymore. Period.

stass 9y ago
It never did, in US we are self-governed, that was the whole idea.
- 1_2__4 9y ago
  Pedantry is unbecoming.
  - stass 9y ago
    It's not really pedantry, I'm not picking on the words, but the concept. Many here, especially a lot of people coming from places with a strong government, decry the fact that US government does very little and seemingly can't make progress. This is by design: US institutions are setup in a way so only absolutely non controversial initiatiaves would pass, while the rest would be handled by citizens themselves or smaller governments on a regional level. Such governing structure was the fundamental innovation made at the time the US was established compared to the old tyrannical governments of the past, and I find it appalling that many people here, many of whom call themselves progressives, completely miss that fact.

thirdsun 9y ago

> It's all the things yet unimagined that ubiquitous high speed internet would enable that's the real tragedy here. And let's not forget that even the things that seem normal and widely available are out of reach for many people: Video streaming, data backups and other tasks just aren't an option for people in underserved areas. Now add a whole family / household and your already inadequately met bandwith equirements multiply.