5 ms·

The infrastructure can be privately owned too. In New Zealand we have a national fibre network covering about 90% of the population. That was built by four pri

The infrastructure can be privately owned too. In New Zealand we have a national fibre network covering about 90% of the population. That was built by four private entities to a set of minimum specifications and with some government subsidies. These companies are not allowed to sell retail services, must offer wholesale access to all ISPs, and have their wholesale pricing regulated.

mardifoufs 4y ago
It seems like new zealand has slower internet speeds than the US, though. It ranks 19th versus 8th for the US. https://www.speedtest.net/global-index#fixed https://www.speedtest.net/global-index#fixed Other rankings seem to more or less agree on that too.
- Retric 4y ago
  Median internet speeds is a terrible metric when comparing infrastructure because it effectively only measures the cheapest to deploy urban populations internet speeds which is basically meaningless now days. 50 Mbps or 500 Mbps all are basically running on the same back haul which is why things fell apart during the pandemic when people tried to actually use their hypothetical home bandwidth. Meanwhile millions of Americans are stuck with 1.5 Mbps DSL or really expensive Satellite internet.
  - mardifoufs 4y ago
    I don't disagree with your point! But it seems like the same pattern is true for average speeds too (sort by average): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_Internet_connection_speeds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_In...
    - Retric 4y ago
      It’s a valid point, on the other hand average is much worse. 1 person at 1GBps makes up for huge numbers of people at 1.5Mbps vs 20 Mbps. Not that all speeds above 20 Mbps are equal, but there are heavy diminishing returns. IMO, I would rank countries by percentage of 50+Mbps internet connections.
  - p1necone 4y ago
    Median, mean and mode are all going to be pretty misleading if you're trying to work out if people outside of densely populated areas can get decent speeds. You probably need to measure lower percentiles to get an idea of how bad it can get.
  - unmole 4y ago
    Why is it meaningless to look at the most common deployment?
    - Retric 4y ago
      The numbers got high enough the differences don’t really matter much, and the distribution is really wide. Suppose you were looking at countries median car top speed. Fining one countries median is 150 MPH vs 156 just don’t tell you much when you can’t drive that speed on public roads. Or in internet terms Netflix etc isn’t sending 8k stream let alone multiple 8k streams. On the other hand many internet connections can’t handle a single 4k or even 1080p stream so percentage of connections over X threshold is more impactful.
      - goodpoint 4y ago
        Netflix often uses local caches hosted by large ISPs, making it even more difficult to talk about Internet "speed".
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- notjake123 4y ago
  I think that's a bad metric because it does not measure the actually speed of the network i.e I could get 2000 down but I only pay for 50.
  - p1necone 4y ago
    Yeah - to get a decent idea you'd need to measure $/mbps as well as measuring average speed. And measure best available rather than what people have opted for personally. E.g. * Country/ISP A has 4 gigabit fiber for $100/month, and 1 gigabit for $50/month. * Country/ISP B has 4 gigabit fiber for $100/month, and 1 gigabit for $90/month. In country A a lot more people are going to opt for 1 gigabit - it's way cheaper and still good enough - therefore their average speed stat is going to be lower even though the actual options are strictly better than in country B.
- postingawayonhn 4y ago
  Not everyone signs up to the highest speed tiers, but generally speaking 90% of the country has access to 1 gigabit fibre and some areas also have 4 or 8 gigabit fibre infrastructure.
  - olyjohn 4y ago
    You would not know if when you visit there. I stayed a month there and travelled all over. Internet was trash everywhere I went. I visited places that had time limits and data caps under 1gb. Even staying in AirBnBs that share internet with the owners, almost nobody had a good connection. I had one good place in an apartment in the core of Wellington where the internet was fine.
rektide 4y ago
Im very into the idea of the state competing to create accessible affordable baselines, and letting everyone else compete openly in trying to make money. If government wants to do that by contacting out a bunch of the effort, ok! Government trying to insure good baselines, not just regulatorily, but actually doing the work & owning the system (again even if contacted) feels like it's ever more necessary step to keep a healthy society.
- dilawar 4y ago
  India's Unified Payment Gateway (UPI) is also created and managed by government. Private players are free to use the service and build products around it. It worked really well. Though I am more inclined to give more credit to people who built and maintaining it rather than to some model. Like ISRO and Delhi Metro, its a miracle since India's stultifying beurocracy has a well deserved reputation.
  - unmole 4y ago
    > India's Unified Payment Gateway (UPI) is also created and managed by government No it isn't. NPCI is owned by a consortium of banks.
- AnthonyMouse 4y ago
  The question is, where does the government get the capital? If it's from taxpayers, their service has an asymmetric advantage and can drive out private competitors even if it's poorly managed, which is highly inefficient and results in a de facto government monopoly. But it could work pretty well if it's funded by bonds it has to pay back out of subscription fees and a default causes everyone involved to be fired.
  - notdonspaulding 4y ago
    Your first thought is completely right. Your second thought sounds like a good idea. Let's have another competitor (government) funded by private entities via debt equity (bonds) which is paid back by customer receipts (profits) where failure equals unemployment. Actually, this is starting to sound like a business, but with more steps and the power to pass laws affecting its own operating environment. What's the advantage to having the government be the competitor?

mardifoufs 4y ago

It seems like new zealand has slower internet speeds than the US, though. It ranks 19th versus 8th for the US. https://www.speedtest.net/global-index#fixed https://www.speedtest.net/global-index#fixed Other rankings seem to more or less agree on that too.

Retric 4y ago
Median internet speeds is a terrible metric when comparing infrastructure because it effectively only measures the cheapest to deploy urban populations internet speeds which is basically meaningless now days. 50 Mbps or 500 Mbps all are basically running on the same back haul which is why things fell apart during the pandemic when people tried to actually use their hypothetical home bandwidth. Meanwhile millions of Americans are stuck with 1.5 Mbps DSL or really expensive Satellite internet.
- mardifoufs 4y ago
  I don't disagree with your point! But it seems like the same pattern is true for average speeds too (sort by average): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_Internet_connection_speeds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_In...
  - Retric 4y ago
    It’s a valid point, on the other hand average is much worse. 1 person at 1GBps makes up for huge numbers of people at 1.5Mbps vs 20 Mbps. Not that all speeds above 20 Mbps are equal, but there are heavy diminishing returns. IMO, I would rank countries by percentage of 50+Mbps internet connections.
- p1necone 4y ago
  Median, mean and mode are all going to be pretty misleading if you're trying to work out if people outside of densely populated areas can get decent speeds. You probably need to measure lower percentiles to get an idea of how bad it can get.
- unmole 4y ago
  Why is it meaningless to look at the most common deployment?
  - Retric 4y ago
    The numbers got high enough the differences don’t really matter much, and the distribution is really wide. Suppose you were looking at countries median car top speed. Fining one countries median is 150 MPH vs 156 just don’t tell you much when you can’t drive that speed on public roads. Or in internet terms Netflix etc isn’t sending 8k stream let alone multiple 8k streams. On the other hand many internet connections can’t handle a single 4k or even 1080p stream so percentage of connections over X threshold is more impactful.
    - goodpoint 4y ago
      Netflix often uses local caches hosted by large ISPs, making it even more difficult to talk about Internet "speed".
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
notjake123 4y ago
I think that's a bad metric because it does not measure the actually speed of the network i.e I could get 2000 down but I only pay for 50.
- p1necone 4y ago
  Yeah - to get a decent idea you'd need to measure $/mbps as well as measuring average speed. And measure best available rather than what people have opted for personally. E.g. * Country/ISP A has 4 gigabit fiber for $100/month, and 1 gigabit for $50/month. * Country/ISP B has 4 gigabit fiber for $100/month, and 1 gigabit for $90/month. In country A a lot more people are going to opt for 1 gigabit - it's way cheaper and still good enough - therefore their average speed stat is going to be lower even though the actual options are strictly better than in country B.
postingawayonhn 4y ago
Not everyone signs up to the highest speed tiers, but generally speaking 90% of the country has access to 1 gigabit fibre and some areas also have 4 or 8 gigabit fibre infrastructure.
- olyjohn 4y ago
  You would not know if when you visit there. I stayed a month there and travelled all over. Internet was trash everywhere I went. I visited places that had time limits and data caps under 1gb. Even staying in AirBnBs that share internet with the owners, almost nobody had a good connection. I had one good place in an apartment in the core of Wellington where the internet was fine.

rektide 4y ago

Im very into the idea of the state competing to create accessible affordable baselines, and letting everyone else compete openly in trying to make money. If government wants to do that by contacting out a bunch of the effort, ok! Government trying to insure good baselines, not just regulatorily, but actually doing the work & owning the system (again even if contacted) feels like it's ever more necessary step to keep a healthy society.

dilawar 4y ago
India's Unified Payment Gateway (UPI) is also created and managed by government. Private players are free to use the service and build products around it. It worked really well. Though I am more inclined to give more credit to people who built and maintaining it rather than to some model. Like ISRO and Delhi Metro, its a miracle since India's stultifying beurocracy has a well deserved reputation.
- unmole 4y ago
  > India's Unified Payment Gateway (UPI) is also created and managed by government No it isn't. NPCI is owned by a consortium of banks.
AnthonyMouse 4y ago
The question is, where does the government get the capital? If it's from taxpayers, their service has an asymmetric advantage and can drive out private competitors even if it's poorly managed, which is highly inefficient and results in a de facto government monopoly. But it could work pretty well if it's funded by bonds it has to pay back out of subscription fees and a default causes everyone involved to be fired.
- notdonspaulding 4y ago
  Your first thought is completely right. Your second thought sounds like a good idea. Let's have another competitor (government) funded by private entities via debt equity (bonds) which is paid back by customer receipts (profits) where failure equals unemployment. Actually, this is starting to sound like a business, but with more steps and the power to pass laws affecting its own operating environment. What's the advantage to having the government be the competitor?