9 ms·

This is one of the things I like ranting about, so I'll try not to do that. I also live in an area that will never see high-speed internet. We were sold out by

This is one of the things I like ranting about, so I'll try not to do that. I also live in an area that will never see high-speed internet. We were sold out by both the feds and our state legislators. You can argue that perhaps these government officials were misled or uniformed, but I remain dubious. We were able to construct an interstate highway system. We were able to wire this country with electricity. We were able to wire it for telephones. The only reason we can't wire it with fiber is because of poor government management of eminent domain. We should kick most of those responsible out of office. To see a bunch of yahoos on TV telling me we need the road paved when most of their constituents don't have enough bandwidth to get high-quality instruction over the web? Or to work over the web? It's the Information Age, bozos. Something is wrong somewhere. The worst part? I do not expect this to get fixed any time in the next couple of decades. Not only is it broken and hurting, but there's no political incentive to fix it. In fact the incentives run the other way.

MordinSolus 14y ago
So you're saying that the government, either knowingly or unknowingly, made decisions that, in the long run, adversely affected its citizens? No kidding.
- nessus42 14y ago
  'Cuz all those other countries that got it better, did so with a pure, laissez-faire market, free of any government intervention.
  - astrodust 14y ago
    Like France.
  - MordinSolus 14y ago
    Can you provide a single example of such a country? Regardless, free-market capitalism is not predicated on freedom from government intervention; in fact, a government is necessary in order to protect the freedoms of the individual. That should be the purpose of the government: protecting the freedom of its citizens. Creating an environment that allows voluntary trade of goods and services to exist. Not picking winners or losers. Not imposing regulations that create monopolies. Not encouraging bad behavior by banks. Not rewarding bad decisions by auto manufacturers. Not being in bed with unions and corporations alike. Here's how I think about it: What can one corporation do to a person? Not much. What can one government do to a person? Take away his freedom, imprison him, and / or kill him. Would I rather have flawed, power abusing individuals the power to impose their will over an entire country, or just their company? Would I rather centralize power in a way that is not accountable to anyone, or would I rather have power be decentralized and much more accountable to me? No one is arguing for no government. But we are looking at the present state of affairs and the reasons we got here, and then looking at the past and seeing what happened then and why... and we're realizing that, for the most part, more government is bad.
    - nessus42 14y ago
      Get back to me when you can point out a single successful country in the entire history of the world that actually operated on "Libertarian" or "Objectivist" principles.
      - jlarocco 14y ago
        Can you name one that's tried either of them and stuck with it?
        nessus42 14y ago
        If we are going to experiment with completely unproven political and economic systems on our own society, I vote for a socialist anarchy. First order of business: eliminate corporations. Immortal amoral virtual people cause nothing but trouble!
        ktizo 14y ago
        I really don't think anarchy is something you vote for. Is more like the base state that exists already, as long as you can reliably avoid the people in silly hats. And how are you going to eliminate corporations if you have anarchy? You would have to enact legislation backed by force, because a lot of people are not going to agree. Is a bit like some of the arguments I have with mates where they say they want to institute anarchy and ban money. To which I usually point out that firstly, banning money sounds a lot like an imposed law and that secondly, irrespective of my views on monetary systems and that they can probably be improved upon, if anyone tried to ban money, the first thing I would do is start a currency just to annoy them. [edit] My view on money is that eventually it will be obsolete for acquiring many everyday goods, but remain for luxuries for a very long time, but the point at which I expect this to start to occur is still a reasonably long way off. The key technology that could start bringing this about is a fully automated farming and delivery chain driven off solar. I am mostly keeping a close eye on Brazil as the most likely candidate for schemes like this to be tried first, given the rapid economic development, political climate, and existing food security schemes like that in the city of Belo Horizonte. http://www.unesco.org/most/southa10.htm http://www.unesco.org/most/southa10.htm Note, I am not against money per-se as I think that it was a vast improvement on what it replaced, I just think that it doesn't have the lowest economic friction for acquiring any abundant items that have negligible ongoing costs.
batgaijin 14y ago
See, I want to agree with you, but I'm not sure. I think that the future really is in wireles communications. What's the point of laying down fiber if in 10 years we can get wireless at the same speed? Of course I'm assming that telco will actually compete in tthat domain... but considering how easy it is to switch serfices, I think it can only get more disruptive.
- toomuchtodo 14y ago
  Wireless is a shared medium. There is a limit to how much you can push through the air. Laying fiber once is long enough to last at least 100 years (based on what we know now). Should we not lay fiber just because wireless may eventually be as fast? A good decision now is better than the best decision later.
- ceph_ 14y ago
  And in those 10 years the amount of data you can mux into fiber pairs will have increased at an even greater pace. What do you think your wireless carriers are using as a backbone? fiber. The fact that speeds of wireless providers have caught up to the average speeds of landline ISPs in most areas is just a sign of the corruption of the cable companies, not that wireless is a superior medium for data transfer.
- ktizo 14y ago
  What's the point of laying down fiber if in 10 years we can get wireless at the same speed? Sunspots.
- sterna 14y ago
  Wireless will never be able to match the bandwidth of fiber. Today fiber can transmit close to 10 Tb/s through a single line. This is orders of magnitude more than will ever be possible with wireless.
satori99 14y ago
Woz doesnt expect it to change in the US either. He is applying for Australian citizenship to get better broadband. http://afr.com/p/technology/wozniak_likes_nbn_so_much_he_applying_lz4NGUtmpS2PvD55EJ4eoL http://afr.com/p/technology/wozniak_likes_nbn_so_much_he_app...
- Natsu 14y ago
  Have Australia's outbound links improved much? Between Telstra and the latency connecting to the US, I thought that they had sub-par internet. But I don't live there, so maybe I've been misinformed.
  - Nick_C 14y ago
    It's not too bad. There are a couple of pipes and routes, not all go through Telstra. I usually get about 225 ms pings between west coast Aust to west coast US (~9,500 miles). It's fine for regular internet including downloads, but gamers don't like it (I guess much of that latency is just down to plain old distance rather than bandwidth). We also have good pipes to the main POPs in Asia.
tsotha 14y ago
Why are you expecting the rest of us to subsidize your internet service?
- factorizer 14y ago
  You could say that about every service in rural areas. If you tried to go all the way with your argument, only a few urban centres would be left with decent infrastructure. And of course infrastructure needed to support those (parasitic) centres (what with food and the like). A rather gloomy picture of society, if you asked me.
  - eli_gottlieb 14y ago
    It would be a return to the Ancient Greek style of city-states which employ or enslave their surrounding rural population to feed the city-dwellers.
  - tsotha 14y ago
    >You could say that about every service in rural areas. Well, I do ask that question about every service in rural areas. There are advantages to living in the countryside - traffic, clean air, cheap housing. If I'm expected to subsidize rural broadband, why aren't rural people expected to subsidize my housing costs? If cheap, fast broadband is really important to you, why don't you move somewhere it's available?

MordinSolus 14y ago

So you're saying that the government, either knowingly or unknowingly, made decisions that, in the long run, adversely affected its citizens? No kidding.

nessus42 14y ago
'Cuz all those other countries that got it better, did so with a pure, laissez-faire market, free of any government intervention.
- astrodust 14y ago
  Like France.
- MordinSolus 14y ago
  Can you provide a single example of such a country? Regardless, free-market capitalism is not predicated on freedom from government intervention; in fact, a government is necessary in order to protect the freedoms of the individual. That should be the purpose of the government: protecting the freedom of its citizens. Creating an environment that allows voluntary trade of goods and services to exist. Not picking winners or losers. Not imposing regulations that create monopolies. Not encouraging bad behavior by banks. Not rewarding bad decisions by auto manufacturers. Not being in bed with unions and corporations alike. Here's how I think about it: What can one corporation do to a person? Not much. What can one government do to a person? Take away his freedom, imprison him, and / or kill him. Would I rather have flawed, power abusing individuals the power to impose their will over an entire country, or just their company? Would I rather centralize power in a way that is not accountable to anyone, or would I rather have power be decentralized and much more accountable to me? No one is arguing for no government. But we are looking at the present state of affairs and the reasons we got here, and then looking at the past and seeing what happened then and why... and we're realizing that, for the most part, more government is bad.
  - nessus42 14y ago
    Get back to me when you can point out a single successful country in the entire history of the world that actually operated on "Libertarian" or "Objectivist" principles.
    - jlarocco 14y ago
      Can you name one that's tried either of them and stuck with it?
      - nessus42 14y ago
        If we are going to experiment with completely unproven political and economic systems on our own society, I vote for a socialist anarchy. First order of business: eliminate corporations. Immortal amoral virtual people cause nothing but trouble!
        ktizo 14y ago
        I really don't think anarchy is something you vote for. Is more like the base state that exists already, as long as you can reliably avoid the people in silly hats. And how are you going to eliminate corporations if you have anarchy? You would have to enact legislation backed by force, because a lot of people are not going to agree. Is a bit like some of the arguments I have with mates where they say they want to institute anarchy and ban money. To which I usually point out that firstly, banning money sounds a lot like an imposed law and that secondly, irrespective of my views on monetary systems and that they can probably be improved upon, if anyone tried to ban money, the first thing I would do is start a currency just to annoy them. [edit] My view on money is that eventually it will be obsolete for acquiring many everyday goods, but remain for luxuries for a very long time, but the point at which I expect this to start to occur is still a reasonably long way off. The key technology that could start bringing this about is a fully automated farming and delivery chain driven off solar. I am mostly keeping a close eye on Brazil as the most likely candidate for schemes like this to be tried first, given the rapid economic development, political climate, and existing food security schemes like that in the city of Belo Horizonte. http://www.unesco.org/most/southa10.htm http://www.unesco.org/most/southa10.htm Note, I am not against money per-se as I think that it was a vast improvement on what it replaced, I just think that it doesn't have the lowest economic friction for acquiring any abundant items that have negligible ongoing costs.

batgaijin 14y ago

See, I want to agree with you, but I'm not sure. I think that the future really is in wireles communications. What's the point of laying down fiber if in 10 years we can get wireless at the same speed? Of course I'm assming that telco will actually compete in tthat domain... but considering how easy it is to switch serfices, I think it can only get more disruptive.

toomuchtodo 14y ago
Wireless is a shared medium. There is a limit to how much you can push through the air. Laying fiber once is long enough to last at least 100 years (based on what we know now). Should we not lay fiber just because wireless may eventually be as fast? A good decision now is better than the best decision later.
ceph_ 14y ago
And in those 10 years the amount of data you can mux into fiber pairs will have increased at an even greater pace. What do you think your wireless carriers are using as a backbone? fiber. The fact that speeds of wireless providers have caught up to the average speeds of landline ISPs in most areas is just a sign of the corruption of the cable companies, not that wireless is a superior medium for data transfer.
ktizo 14y ago
What's the point of laying down fiber if in 10 years we can get wireless at the same speed? Sunspots.
sterna 14y ago
Wireless will never be able to match the bandwidth of fiber. Today fiber can transmit close to 10 Tb/s through a single line. This is orders of magnitude more than will ever be possible with wireless.

satori99 14y ago

Woz doesnt expect it to change in the US either. He is applying for Australian citizenship to get better broadband. http://afr.com/p/technology/wozniak_likes_nbn_so_much_he_applying_lz4NGUtmpS2PvD55EJ4eoL http://afr.com/p/technology/wozniak_likes_nbn_so_much_he_app...

Natsu 14y ago
Have Australia's outbound links improved much? Between Telstra and the latency connecting to the US, I thought that they had sub-par internet. But I don't live there, so maybe I've been misinformed.
- Nick_C 14y ago
  It's not too bad. There are a couple of pipes and routes, not all go through Telstra. I usually get about 225 ms pings between west coast Aust to west coast US (~9,500 miles). It's fine for regular internet including downloads, but gamers don't like it (I guess much of that latency is just down to plain old distance rather than bandwidth). We also have good pipes to the main POPs in Asia.

tsotha 14y ago

Why are you expecting the rest of us to subsidize your internet service?

factorizer 14y ago
You could say that about every service in rural areas. If you tried to go all the way with your argument, only a few urban centres would be left with decent infrastructure. And of course infrastructure needed to support those (parasitic) centres (what with food and the like). A rather gloomy picture of society, if you asked me.
- eli_gottlieb 14y ago
  It would be a return to the Ancient Greek style of city-states which employ or enslave their surrounding rural population to feed the city-dwellers.
- tsotha 14y ago
  >You could say that about every service in rural areas. Well, I do ask that question about every service in rural areas. There are advantages to living in the countryside - traffic, clean air, cheap housing. If I'm expected to subsidize rural broadband, why aren't rural people expected to subsidize my housing costs? If cheap, fast broadband is really important to you, why don't you move somewhere it's available?