4 ms·

30 minutes away from Microsoft main campus in Redmond WA, (and just a bit further away from Google/Amazon campus' in the area) Best available internet is a 3mb

30 minutes away from Microsoft main campus in Redmond WA, (and just a bit further away from Google/Amazon campus' in the area) Best available internet is a 3mbit down, 1-if-you're-lucky-mbit up DSL connection from CenturyLink with latency that jumps into the 2.5+ second range when it rains hard. Which, fortunately it never does in the pacific northwest. :-D And no, traditional satellite is a no-go, even if it was an affordable option. We have these things called "mountains" you see, and the satellites are only at certain spots in the sky, sadly occluded by a couple billion tons of rock and tree. To reiterate, this is within commuting distance of "big tech" HQs. Starlink can't come fast enough. Existing ISPs need to feel the pain of screwing their customers so bad for so long.

semi-extrinsic 7y ago
Sounds like a mostly-US problem that would be better solved by proper regulation of markets. But nah, that'd be crazy socialism stuff.
- antepodius 7y ago
  It's all local state-enforced monopolies, man. The current internet situation is pretty close to socialist paradise.
- NikolaNovak 7y ago
  ... poor internet bandwidth or accessibility in remote region... is a "US only problem"?? I make it a point to not sound snarky or sarcastic on HN, we have a pretty good standard of discourse here - but that just seems a ludicrous statement to make, and I'm frankly curious what consideration went into it, as opposed to a knee-jerk reaction? I don't think technology will solve all the world's ills; I agree that regulation of markets is a useful measure to undertake in certain situations; I don't find "Socialist" a swear word; but if ever there was a problem with a technical solution, then accessibility of internet in remote solution is almost the canonical use-case. Regulation of markets will not bring the Interwebs to remote or underdeveloped parts of the world. Now... if we want to discuss whether bringing the Intertubes to all the world is a worthy goal or not; whether it is worth the compromises and risks a massive constellation of satellites will impose; sure, that's a productive tops to examine. But if we accept for sake of argument that internet in remote or underdeveloped parts of the world is a goal, I'm curious to see how market regulation will make that happen better and faster than a giant freakin' laser... I mean, giant freakin' constellation of satellites :).
- skissane 7y ago
  It is absolutely not a "mostly-US problem". We have the same problem in Australia. A lot of places only option was crappy ADSL. Then new (centre-left) government announced a project (NBN) to install fibre-to-the-premises (FTTP) to the majority of the population. Massive, very expensive project, that was going to take a long time. Quite predictably, the centre-right party attacked it as costing too much money. Six years later, the centre-right win election, and thus far only a small number of lucky people had got their FTTP installed. New government decides FTTP was too expensive, replaces it with crappy fibre-to-the-node (FTTN) instead, which slows to a crawl whenever the node is oversubscribed (happens a lot due to the growing popularity of video streaming). And it tells other people that any fixed line solution was too expensive for them, and forces them on to wireless or satellite. Some people even got told they were losing their ADSL and having it replaced with a less reliable wireless or satellite connection.
- nickik 7y ago
  Local market regulation is what is blocking any competition. The absurd believe people have that whenever something isn't working, markets will need more regulation is so absurd. There are literally regulation that are preventing markets from even existing. But your solution is more regulation?
runarberg 7y ago
I don’t understand, why is it not feasible to bring faster internet connectivity to suburban America with traditional infrastructure? Why do we need an entrepreneur to launch a constellation of satellites into low earth orbit—ruining the night sky for astronomers globally? Countries like Finland and Iceland can bring decent speed internet to rural populations where it rains as much (or even more) then in the pacific north west. So I don’t know what makes America so exceptional that they can’t bring good internet to their population.
- inetknght 7y ago
  > why is it not feasible to bring faster internet connectivity to suburban America with traditional infrastructure? Politics and corruption. Existing entrenched ISPs are massively profitable. Competition kills profits.
  - runarberg 7y ago
    It sounds like a change in policy would be more sane then entrusting private entrepreneur in fixing this very solvable problem.
    - throwawayhhakdl 7y ago
      So all you need to do is change the policy determining billions of dollars of infrastructure and profits with powerful entrenched interests? Where do I sign up?
    - inetknght 7y ago
      Oh yeah. That's definitely all it is. Why didn't we figure that out? What policy do you want to change?
      - runarberg 7y ago
        Since the problem is lack of internet infrastructure, as the market has failed in providing decent internet to a significant portion of the population, I suggest that the government subsides (or even funds) the infrastructure projects required for bringing the portion of the population a decent internet connection that the marked has failed. That seems like a pretty obvious policy change that a mere layperson can come up with in their couch. I’m sure a civil engineer can do better though.
zbrozek 7y ago
I'm within line-of-sight of Google HQ (I can literally see their campus from my porch, less than six miles away) yet my only wired internet option is AT&T DSL. Comcast offered to add my home to their network for a paltry $22,000. I look forward to Starlink creating a universal competitor even if I'm not a customer. It'd be even better if rockets needn't be involved in creating a competitive marketplace, but that doesn't seem likely.

semi-extrinsic 7y ago

Sounds like a mostly-US problem that would be better solved by proper regulation of markets. But nah, that'd be crazy socialism stuff.

antepodius 7y ago
It's all local state-enforced monopolies, man. The current internet situation is pretty close to socialist paradise.
NikolaNovak 7y ago
... poor internet bandwidth or accessibility in remote region... is a "US only problem"?? I make it a point to not sound snarky or sarcastic on HN, we have a pretty good standard of discourse here - but that just seems a ludicrous statement to make, and I'm frankly curious what consideration went into it, as opposed to a knee-jerk reaction? I don't think technology will solve all the world's ills; I agree that regulation of markets is a useful measure to undertake in certain situations; I don't find "Socialist" a swear word; but if ever there was a problem with a technical solution, then accessibility of internet in remote solution is almost the canonical use-case. Regulation of markets will not bring the Interwebs to remote or underdeveloped parts of the world. Now... if we want to discuss whether bringing the Intertubes to all the world is a worthy goal or not; whether it is worth the compromises and risks a massive constellation of satellites will impose; sure, that's a productive tops to examine. But if we accept for sake of argument that internet in remote or underdeveloped parts of the world is a goal, I'm curious to see how market regulation will make that happen better and faster than a giant freakin' laser... I mean, giant freakin' constellation of satellites :).
skissane 7y ago
It is absolutely not a "mostly-US problem". We have the same problem in Australia. A lot of places only option was crappy ADSL. Then new (centre-left) government announced a project (NBN) to install fibre-to-the-premises (FTTP) to the majority of the population. Massive, very expensive project, that was going to take a long time. Quite predictably, the centre-right party attacked it as costing too much money. Six years later, the centre-right win election, and thus far only a small number of lucky people had got their FTTP installed. New government decides FTTP was too expensive, replaces it with crappy fibre-to-the-node (FTTN) instead, which slows to a crawl whenever the node is oversubscribed (happens a lot due to the growing popularity of video streaming). And it tells other people that any fixed line solution was too expensive for them, and forces them on to wireless or satellite. Some people even got told they were losing their ADSL and having it replaced with a less reliable wireless or satellite connection.
nickik 7y ago
Local market regulation is what is blocking any competition. The absurd believe people have that whenever something isn't working, markets will need more regulation is so absurd. There are literally regulation that are preventing markets from even existing. But your solution is more regulation?

runarberg 7y ago

I don’t understand, why is it not feasible to bring faster internet connectivity to suburban America with traditional infrastructure? Why do we need an entrepreneur to launch a constellation of satellites into low earth orbit—ruining the night sky for astronomers globally? Countries like Finland and Iceland can bring decent speed internet to rural populations where it rains as much (or even more) then in the pacific north west. So I don’t know what makes America so exceptional that they can’t bring good internet to their population.

inetknght 7y ago
> why is it not feasible to bring faster internet connectivity to suburban America with traditional infrastructure? Politics and corruption. Existing entrenched ISPs are massively profitable. Competition kills profits.
- runarberg 7y ago
  It sounds like a change in policy would be more sane then entrusting private entrepreneur in fixing this very solvable problem.
  - throwawayhhakdl 7y ago
    So all you need to do is change the policy determining billions of dollars of infrastructure and profits with powerful entrenched interests? Where do I sign up?
  - inetknght 7y ago
    Oh yeah. That's definitely all it is. Why didn't we figure that out? What policy do you want to change?
    - runarberg 7y ago
      Since the problem is lack of internet infrastructure, as the market has failed in providing decent internet to a significant portion of the population, I suggest that the government subsides (or even funds) the infrastructure projects required for bringing the portion of the population a decent internet connection that the marked has failed. That seems like a pretty obvious policy change that a mere layperson can come up with in their couch. I’m sure a civil engineer can do better though.

zbrozek 7y ago

I'm within line-of-sight of Google HQ (I can literally see their campus from my porch, less than six miles away) yet my only wired internet option is AT&T DSL. Comcast offered to add my home to their network for a paltry $22,000. I look forward to Starlink creating a universal competitor even if I'm not a customer. It'd be even better if rockets needn't be involved in creating a competitive marketplace, but that doesn't seem likely.