3 ms·

Let it die. I haven't had POTS in probably ten years. I don't want to have to support that infrastructure financially through taxes (or whatever). Despite the

Let it die. I haven't had POTS in probably ten years. I don't want to have to support that infrastructure financially through taxes (or whatever). Despite the fear mongering in the article we are far better off today than we were many years ago. The US comms infrastructure seems to move and evolve slower than at smaller countries for very simple reasons. When you take the lead you give late comers the advantage of looking at what you have done to improving upon. Our infrastructure is absolutely massive when compared to, say, Estonia's (not to pick on them at all, great country). This means that rolling out step improvements is very costly. There's something pro-government folk seem to insist on ignoring: ROI. Companies can't roll out new massive infrastructures and throw away investment from the prior generation. Yes, progress in the context of a significantly larger system will look and feel slower. Our next generation IP infrastructure is being incubated today through experiments and evolution. Perhaps it will take the form of 1Gb/s fiber to the home or something less radical but equally awesome. Only private for-profit enterprise can bring us this.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
chez17 14y ago
> There's something pro-government folk seem to insist on ignoring: ROI. Companies can't roll out new massive infrastructures and throw away investment from the prior generation. It's interesting then when some actual competition comes along speeds increase and prices lower. Look at what happened with Google Fiber in KC. This is an often repeated point that has been proved wrong time and time again. Sure, there is some truth to it on a basic level, upgrading services cost money. In reality the companies have the regulatory bodies under control, the politicians under control, and they don't have to innovate or invest to make insane amounts of money. Why not just improve services in cities where the population is very dense? Why not in places like New England where there are many cities close together? Why if I call to cancel my service my prices can be cut in half? They have the money, there is just zero competition so they don't care.
AnthonyMouse 14y ago
>Our infrastructure is absolutely massive when compared to, say, Estonia's (not to pick on them at all, great country). This means that rolling out step improvements is very costly. You have the math exactly backwards. If you have ten million customers instead of ten thousand then you have a thousand times more customers to spread your costs over and you get greater economies of scale. >Companies can't roll out new massive infrastructures and throw away investment from the prior generation. Sure they can. They just don't ever want to, which is why they don't and why regulators are needed to make them do it. >Our next generation IP infrastructure is being incubated today through experiments and evolution. Perhaps it will take the form of 1Gb/s fiber to the home or something less radical but equally awesome. Only private for-profit enterprise can bring us this. Kindly explain how some foreign countries with highly regulated or state-operated telecommunications companies already have faster internet connections at lower prices than major American cities.
- robomartin 14y ago
  No, my math is right. It takes a lot more effort and money to move a large mass. > Kindly explain how some foreign countries with highly regulated or state-operated telecommunications companies already have faster internet connections than major American cities. Because their infrastructure decisions come after our infrastructure decisions. It takes N years to "wire" a large city like Los Angeles. After that you have to get your money back. Yes, that is not a criminal act. Meanwhile country "X", many years later, looks at what was done in Los Angeles, checks out the more current technological offerings and installs a system that yes, probably leapfrogs what the average customer in Los Angeles has. The true test would be the next evolutionary step. When a city like Los Angeles is ready to make the next big shift in connectivity it will be really neat. Country "X" will then fall behind and it will probably be very, very difficult for them to make the next leap 'cause, well, they have to pay for the investment just as well. The technology that is going to make a huge difference is fiber to the home. We already have it in certain places in Los Angeles. I happen to know that there's fiber in the telco box right outside my house. Why? I saw it being installed fifteen years ago. Not lit yet. It will be, eventually. Fiber is great in that you can greatly enhance transmission rates by driving it differently. There's probably a few more evolutionary steps ahead of us before fiber bandwidth is tapped out. There's another issue a lot of people might not consider when thinking about upgrading the infrastructure of a country like the US. If tomorrow we all had 1Gb/s service at home and at work it would probably crash the Internet. The infrastructure required in order to support something like that at our scale is massive and cost a ton of money. I don't know if costs are geometric or exponential. They are huge. A small country has advantages here as well. No, government and regulation is not the solution. It never is.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

chez17 14y ago

> There's something pro-government folk seem to insist on ignoring: ROI. Companies can't roll out new massive infrastructures and throw away investment from the prior generation. It's interesting then when some actual competition comes along speeds increase and prices lower. Look at what happened with Google Fiber in KC. This is an often repeated point that has been proved wrong time and time again. Sure, there is some truth to it on a basic level, upgrading services cost money. In reality the companies have the regulatory bodies under control, the politicians under control, and they don't have to innovate or invest to make insane amounts of money. Why not just improve services in cities where the population is very dense? Why not in places like New England where there are many cities close together? Why if I call to cancel my service my prices can be cut in half? They have the money, there is just zero competition so they don't care.

AnthonyMouse 14y ago

>Our infrastructure is absolutely massive when compared to, say, Estonia's (not to pick on them at all, great country). This means that rolling out step improvements is very costly. You have the math exactly backwards. If you have ten million customers instead of ten thousand then you have a thousand times more customers to spread your costs over and you get greater economies of scale. >Companies can't roll out new massive infrastructures and throw away investment from the prior generation. Sure they can. They just don't ever want to, which is why they don't and why regulators are needed to make them do it. >Our next generation IP infrastructure is being incubated today through experiments and evolution. Perhaps it will take the form of 1Gb/s fiber to the home or something less radical but equally awesome. Only private for-profit enterprise can bring us this. Kindly explain how some foreign countries with highly regulated or state-operated telecommunications companies already have faster internet connections at lower prices than major American cities.

robomartin 14y ago
No, my math is right. It takes a lot more effort and money to move a large mass. > Kindly explain how some foreign countries with highly regulated or state-operated telecommunications companies already have faster internet connections than major American cities. Because their infrastructure decisions come after our infrastructure decisions. It takes N years to "wire" a large city like Los Angeles. After that you have to get your money back. Yes, that is not a criminal act. Meanwhile country "X", many years later, looks at what was done in Los Angeles, checks out the more current technological offerings and installs a system that yes, probably leapfrogs what the average customer in Los Angeles has. The true test would be the next evolutionary step. When a city like Los Angeles is ready to make the next big shift in connectivity it will be really neat. Country "X" will then fall behind and it will probably be very, very difficult for them to make the next leap 'cause, well, they have to pay for the investment just as well. The technology that is going to make a huge difference is fiber to the home. We already have it in certain places in Los Angeles. I happen to know that there's fiber in the telco box right outside my house. Why? I saw it being installed fifteen years ago. Not lit yet. It will be, eventually. Fiber is great in that you can greatly enhance transmission rates by driving it differently. There's probably a few more evolutionary steps ahead of us before fiber bandwidth is tapped out. There's another issue a lot of people might not consider when thinking about upgrading the infrastructure of a country like the US. If tomorrow we all had 1Gb/s service at home and at work it would probably crash the Internet. The infrastructure required in order to support something like that at our scale is massive and cost a ton of money. I don't know if costs are geometric or exponential. They are huge. A small country has advantages here as well. No, government and regulation is not the solution. It never is.