Says the guy who brought up trainsZimmer wrote:
Could we possibly get back on track now?
I know I derailed it a bit, but this is ridiculous!
Because I'd imagine spreading the internets to 14 Romanians is easier than across the entire UK.Ioan92 wrote:
Everything is bullshit, including internet speeds. Why does it have to be so hard to have a good speed. It's shameful, especially when a shit hole of a country like Romania has higher speeds at like 5 euros per month.
On a somewhat more serious note, the sums needed to do stuff like this never fail to amaze me. Norway are in the process of getting the police over on digital radio, which is going to cost £360 million
I live in a shit hole and 50meg Virgin cable is dated for deployment down here in Q4 this year so if I can get it in this hovel of a city anyone can lol.Zimmer wrote:
So yeah
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8579333.stm
To be honest, that's bullshit. We don't have the resources nor the money to follow through with such a plan. I really don't see how this is going to be achieved. Most houses in the UK still use cable and Brown is saying that we're going to get speeds of 50mbps? Bollocks to that. Our whole internet system is flawed, with the new law getting passed on the 1st of April regarding illegal sites and the fact that providers right now (Easynet) are actively blocking sites like rapidshare without anybodys permission. We're too far behind to catch up by 2012. Same goes for shit like the railway.
On a side note note, he also mentions a new government portal that's going to have everything on it and connected to everything... I'd like to see that happen without major fuck ups... Oh wait.
Don't forget blowing well over $30,000,000 or more in cash for zero net results.Cheez wrote:
If it's anything like the Australian NBN, it'll be scrapped just as it sees light, so the new govt. can pissfart about for 4 years.
Also filters.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
Wait Cable is bad now?
Yep... exactly...mikkel wrote:
Ask the U.S. how a $200 billion handout to telcos in the 90s got everyone 45Mbps fiber connections with countless digital TV channels. Oh wait.Mekstizzle wrote:
Yeah, I don't see how they're going to essentially fund fibre for the whole country. Sounds rather ambitious. I'm all for having plans like fibre internets for the whole country and high speed rail, it's about time we caught up with other European countries, but the costs seem massive, that must be a mistake that a line from London to Brum will be £30bn, surely.
Can't some variants of cable go up to 100mbps with very little effort anyway? And what about VDSL2?
I just hope Google picks my city. I know they are just doing it to show it can and should be done here.. But still .
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I think there's much bigger problems in this country that brown needs to sort out than super fast broadband.
It probably shouldn't be done in the manner that Google is proposing, but trial periods are always fun for consumers.Kmarion wrote:
I just hope Google picks my city. I know they are just doing it to show it can and should be done here.. But still .
For average internet does anyone need more than say 1Mbps?
File transfer is different but for the average person with email and youtube 50Mbps isn't going to change anything.
Ping and server response would be bigger factors I would have thought.
File transfer is different but for the average person with email and youtube 50Mbps isn't going to change anything.
Ping and server response would be bigger factors I would have thought.
Fuck Israel
It won't change much for e-mail, but the only-reads-emails-and-static-websites Internet persona is very much dying. YouTube certainly benefits from higher throughput, and a couple of years from now when half of the stuff on there will be 1080p, it'll be impossible to watch videos without half an hour of buffering.Dilbert_X wrote:
For average internet does anyone need more than say 1Mbps?
File transfer is different but for the average person with email and youtube 50Mbps isn't going to change anything.
Latency would go down, and response would be faster with more throughput.Dilbert_X wrote:
Ping and server response would be bigger factors I would have thought.
Last edited by mikkel (2010-03-23 08:25:15)
I can barely stream 480p on youtube with 1Mbps, not to even talk about 720p / 1080p. Heavy file transfer aside, something around 8Mbps would be enough for most internet stuff.Dilbert_X wrote:
For average internet does anyone need more than say 1Mbps?
File transfer is different but for the average person with email and youtube 50Mbps isn't going to change anything.
Ping and server response would be bigger factors I would have thought.
1Mbps just does not cut it anymore today.
Last edited by DUnlimited (2010-03-23 08:25:44)
main battle tank karthus medikopter 117 megamegapowershot gg
Are you guys talking in megabytes or bits?
Google is doing it to show that it can be done.mikkel wrote:
It probably shouldn't be done in the manner that Google is proposing, but trial periods are always fun for consumers.Kmarion wrote:
I just hope Google picks my city. I know they are just doing it to show it can and should be done here.. But still .
Instead it says it hopes phone and cable companies will learn lessons from the experimental network that will help them hurry the rollout of their own faster systems.
But this is Google we’re talking about. It has massive influence in business, and, increasingly in regulatory circles. The announcement comes right on the heels of the federal government releasing the first round of funding for broadband networks to rural and underserved areas. It appears to be intended as an adjunct to the FCC’s own Broadband Plan, as if to say: “See, you can do it like this.”
Google loves challenging old business models with new technology ideas. Today’s announcement is the search giant’s opening salvo in a challenge to US broadband, which is monopolistic, slow and sees openness as a threat to profits.
“We hope this will serve as an example to other network operators that the open model should not be feared, but should be emulated,” Markham Erickson, Executive Director of the Open Internet Coalition, said in a release today. Google is the marquee member of the group. “Profit and openness are mistakenly seen to be in conflict; in fact we believe they are synergistic and amplifying,” Erickson said.
Google hopes that the new model will fire up the business of being a small, local ISP. That can only be good. The regulators have allowed the huge ISPs (AT&T, Verizon et al) to dominate the broadband business with sheer scale, forcing the smaller guys out. Imagine buying internet service from Bob’s ISP at a reasonable price; oh, and you get 1GB of throughput.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Mb = bit, MB = byteIoan92 wrote:
Are you guys talking in megabytes or bits?
main battle tank karthus medikopter 117 megamegapowershot gg
The concept of open access networks operated by private entities hasn't really proven to be tremendously successful in other deployments. It's a headache of failed interoperability, arguments over carrier rights, hardware issues, software issues, content provider rights and contracts, and a slew of other problems.Kmarion wrote:
Google is doing it to show that it can be done.mikkel wrote:
It probably shouldn't be done in the manner that Google is proposing, but trial periods are always fun for consumers.Kmarion wrote:
I just hope Google picks my city. I know they are just doing it to show it can and should be done here.. But still .
Where open access networks have been deployed, they've mostly either folded, or closed back up after purchasing one or more of the providers delivering content on the network. They have a very bad track record so far.
Last edited by mikkel (2010-03-23 16:14:41)
ahahahahhahhahahahahahahhaaaaaahahahhhaaa
hahahah
ha
ha
hahahah
ha
ha
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
I seriously have no clue .. what are you talking about specifically? Nothing like this has EVER been done by a company of this scale and success.mikkel wrote:
The concept of open access networks operated by private entities hasn't really proven to be tremendously successful in other deployments. It's a headache of failed interoperability, arguments over carrier rights, hardware issues, software issues, content provider rights and contracts, and a slew of other problems.Kmarion wrote:
Google is doing it to show that it can be done.mikkel wrote:
It probably shouldn't be done in the manner that Google is proposing, but trial periods are always fun for consumers.
Where open access networks have been deployed, they've mostly either folded, or closed back up after purchasing one or more of the providers delivering content on the network. They have a very bad track record so far.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Open access networks have been done by companies who, relative to local influence, have been in better positions than Google to make it work, and many of them have failed pretty spectacularly for the reasons outlined above.Kmarion wrote:
I seriously have no clue .. what are you talking about specifically? Nothing like this has EVER been done by a company of this scale and success.mikkel wrote:
The concept of open access networks operated by private entities hasn't really proven to be tremendously successful in other deployments. It's a headache of failed interoperability, arguments over carrier rights, hardware issues, software issues, content provider rights and contracts, and a slew of other problems.Kmarion wrote:
Google is doing it to show that it can be done.
Where open access networks have been deployed, they've mostly either folded, or closed back up after purchasing one or more of the providers delivering content on the network. They have a very bad track record so far.
No one is in a better position to make it work than google. Local influence? I got your local influence swingin right here. Name one company that has tried this with more technological, capital, and monetary influence.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Many are in better positions than Google to undertake these projects. They're typically carried out by local and national utilities with monopolies on critical infrastructure, right of way in the ground, and deployment and development patterns that harmonise. It's easy to throw in a fiber run alongside the power lines or water mains you're digging in.Kmarion wrote:
No one is in a better position to make it work than google.
Technological, capital and monetary influences won't outright eliminate barriers. Google can swing a pretty hefty bag, but they'll be swinging it at some pretty serious opposition.Kmarion wrote:
Name one company that has tried this with more technological, capital, and monetary influence.
Last edited by mikkel (2010-03-24 14:14:51)
This is the reason Google has very specific requirements for the communities they are considering. They are trying to expose the bs fcc regualtions and the copper standards that are in place. Google isn't doing this to make money. Their business model is simply "use more internet". They would be quite happy if (other) ISP's provided excellent service.mikkel wrote:
Many are in better positions than Google to undertake these projects. They're typically carried out by local and national utilities with monopolies on critical infrastructure, right of way in the ground, and deployment and development patterns that harmonise. It's easy to throw in a fiber run alongside the power lines or water mains you're digging in.Kmarion wrote:
No one is in a better position to make it work than google.
Opposition from other providers maybe. People want this and they are vocalizing it to their political leaders. There is a massive courting going on right now for google. If politicians oppose it you better believe google will let the world know. It would be the end of local political careers if they stand in the way. THAT is influence.mikke wrote:
Technological, capital and monetary influences won't outright eliminate barriers. Google can swing a pretty hefty bag, but they'll be swinging it at some pretty serious opposition.Kmarion wrote:
Name one company that has tried this with more technological, capital, and monetary influence.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
This exchange is based in a notion you presented contending that Google are doing this to prove that the model works. The model does not work if it cannot turn a profit.Kmarion wrote:
This is the reason Google has very specific requirements for the communities they are considering. They are trying to expose the bs fcc regualtions and the copper standards that are in place. Google isn't doing this to make money. Their business model is simply "use more internet". They would be quite happy if (other) ISP's provided excellent service.mikkel wrote:
Many are in better positions than Google to undertake these projects. They're typically carried out by local and national utilities with monopolies on critical infrastructure, right of way in the ground, and deployment and development patterns that harmonise. It's easy to throw in a fiber run alongside the power lines or water mains you're digging in.Kmarion wrote:
No one is in a better position to make it work than google.
I'm neither talking about political, nor competitive opposition. I'm talking talking about all of the issues that they'll have to overcome that have brought down similar projects in the past. They're technological, and they're content rights-based.Kmarion wrote:
Opposition from other providers maybe. People want this and they are vocalizing it to their political leaders. There is a massive courting going on right now for google. If politicians oppose it you better believe google will let the world know. It would be the end of local political careers if they stand in the way. THAT is influence.mikkel wrote:
Technological, capital and monetary influences won't outright eliminate barriers. Google can swing a pretty hefty bag, but they'll be swinging it at some pretty serious opposition.Kmarion wrote:
Name one company that has tried this with more technological, capital, and monetary influence.
There is so much unexplored area that it is impossible to know this. Give me the specific reasons and examples that led you to this conclusion.mikkel wrote:
This exchange is based in a notion you presented contending that Google are doing this to prove that the model works. The model does not work if it cannot turn a profit.Kmarion wrote:
This is the reason Google has very specific requirements for the communities they are considering. They are trying to expose the bs fcc regualtions and the copper standards that are in place. Google isn't doing this to make money. Their business model is simply "use more internet". They would be quite happy if (other) ISP's provided excellent service.mikkel wrote:
Many are in better positions than Google to undertake these projects. They're typically carried out by local and national utilities with monopolies on critical infrastructure, right of way in the ground, and deployment and development patterns that harmonise. It's easy to throw in a fiber run alongside the power lines or water mains you're digging in.
Again, lets talk about specific examples. The point was google has the technical capacity/ability (as well as other advantages) that most don't.mik wrote:
I'm neither talking about political, nor competitive opposition. I'm talking talking about all of the issues that they'll have to overcome that have brought down similar projects in the past. They're technological, and they're content rights-based.Kmarion wrote:
Opposition from other providers maybe. People want this and they are vocalizing it to their political leaders. There is a massive courting going on right now for google. If politicians oppose it you better believe google will let the world know. It would be the end of local political careers if they stand in the way. THAT is influence.mikkel wrote:
Technological, capital and monetary influences won't outright eliminate barriers. Google can swing a pretty hefty bag, but they'll be swinging it at some pretty serious opposition.
Xbone Stormsurgezz