The Only Real JP Button

yea ; ;

Here 1mb = 35 dls.... /sigh

I dunno how these average are calculated, but the value for France is completely wrong.

There's no way that the average is 17.6 Mbps. It's more like somewhere between 5 and 6 Mbps. Unless they only considered major cities.

90% of consumers got ADSL or ADSL2+ in France, typical speed is 8Mbps or 20Mbps, but to get these speed you need to be located near your DSLAM (<1km) or the speed start to decrease.

Being at 4,500meters from my DSLAM would only get me 1.7 Mbps for example. (while I could "technically" get 8Mbps).

Also whoever made this picture is HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE, Mbps with a -M- and not a -m-.

Actually, the problem isn't lack of government control but too much government interference.

The way it works is that a lot of local governments decide which ISP's can operate in a given area, essentially handing them a monopoly. When the ISP has a guarantee of no competition, they don't NEED to improve service. They can make token improvements to justify rate increases and leave it at that. The local government gets its tax revenue from the business as well as the ability to dictate certain operations. After all, the government gave the monopoly, and can take it away if they want.

In a true capitalistic model, there would be several ISP's competing for the customers' dollar. It would not just be about speed vs price, since that is limited by technology. There might be pricing plans, or access plans, or even customer service plans. More options to attract customers. In the end, the company or companies with the best deals would thrive, and continue to do so by providing what their customers want/need before the customers even realized it themselves, or another company came in and did it better.

The argument AGAINST such a model, or rather, the argument made by the government, is that the ISP's would confuse the knuckle dragging public w/ too many options, or that having too many competitors would confuse the knuckle dragging public, or that the landscape would be littered w/ too many wires/cables/whatever if more than one company was allowed to operate in an area. They argue that they know best and we should just trust their judgement. Why bother w/ choice when that brings the risk of choosing incorrectly? You might choose a plan that costs more than another and you'll end up paying more than your neighbor, and thats just not fair. Or you might choose a plan thats faster than your neighbor, and thats not fair to them. Just trade your freedom for security and let the government take care of you.

The idea that central planning can provide better than the private market is a myth. If a private company makes a poor business decision, they risk failure. When a government programe makes poor business decisions, it risks nothing. They essentially have unlimited resources through taxation, powered by a printing press, and enforced at the end of a gun. That doesn't lead to innovation so much as it does to corruption and waste.

QFT

In France I'm paying 20€ (28$) for 30M (not sure about upload speed). It used to be great 3 years ago. The cable company now offers 100M for 30€, with free phone and TV, thanks to their optic fiber net.

Nothing to do with these benevolent companies claiming proprietary rights to the infrastructure, right? They'd never gouge the customer with usage-tiered pricing just beacause they think they have a right to deny "certain" people service. Nope, its all the government's fault!

Try again, propagandist.

Actually no private compagny would bother investing money into very expensive infrastructures for small towns, isolated people, or low densities of customers, because it's just a waste of money. The idea that free markets gives best service is more than a myth, it's a lie.

In an open market system, if there are three companies competing and one tries that tiered pricing scheme, you'd go to one of the other two, denying them your business. If customers leave, it doesn't matter HOW MUCH they gouge the price because they'd have no customers, and therefore no business.

The only reason they are allowed to get away w/ setting up those tiered pricing schemes is BECAUSE they have the government monopolies, meaning they can do whatever they want and the only options you have are to pay what they tell you to pay, or simply go without.

Understand now, my soft headed friend?

There is still a clientele to be served there, meaning money to be made. If company A decided to under serve the population there, companies B and C could come in and easily steal away those customers by providing a better product. Such a thing is not allowed under the current government decided single provider set up because there is no competition allowed.

I think you're wrong there, and there are concrete examples. No compagny will ever build any infrastructures if there's not enough money to make to cover investment. I've never heard of compagnies seeking low and long term profit. (or negative profit)

Perhaps. Or perhaps they would find a different way of providing. The market would provide the best available options for the situation.

Say you did have a town of 30 at the corner of No and Where. If the government dictated to a company, say, Charter Internet, to provide service there or lose their other localities, Charter would do it, even though the costs for them are vastly higher than what they would make back there. At that point they'll either charge exorbitant rates that you'll have to pay because there is no competition, or they'll pass along that cost to other customers, meaning EVERYONE pays more. And do you think once the initial cable is laid that they would ever upgrade the infrastructure?

In such a situation, investment would be covered by the garanteed money from the monopoly in the region. This is where I see the point of monopoly at first, if it opens to competition in the future.

But i'm not naive and i assume the *real* reasons are somewhere else, and i'm not arguing them. I'm just saying that private market solving all the problems is a myth, i could provide many examples of it.

Now, it's just a matter of beliefs. And quite honnestly, if i need to be f***'d in the ***, i'd rather it to be by government than some private compagny feeding fat shareholders with MY money.

Of course any area that has cable (ie almost everywhere) is going to have at least 2 options, and there's always satellite for a third option (even if it does suck). Unless you live in the middle of no where, there's not going to be a real monopoly.

Instead you'd feed fat politicians and get screwed over for only half the benefit.

I'd rather not get screwed over at all, but nanny state doesn't care about that.

These are the same people... or at least, they're very close friends.

So then how do you justify it? The reason there is such a close business/govt relationship right now is because government has its thumb in every pie. When they dictate who operates where, what they can and can't do, who gets tax money in the form of subsidies, businesses have to shmooze to the nanny state through contributions and being supplicant to their diktats in order to remain in business. It has become an aristocracy of pull where it doesn't matter how good you are as a company, but whether you're padding the right pockets in the government. Like I said in my original post, when you have government interference in the market, you get corruption and waste.

If government don't interfere, then companies will just fix their price so customers get always screwed. That's what happened with mobile phone company in France (and ISP as well). The whole point more competition = lower prices is ***.

Enjoy your cartel.

I'd like you to explain me why we have shitload of ISP in here, yet the monthly fee for a classic "triple-play" offer (TV / Internet / Phone) is always 30 euros / month... Should I also mention that the price of 30 euros / month been the same since 2001 (when DSL started to become massively available in France).

What ISPs did is giving user more BW and extra services, but they did never lower the price. Yet all ISP offers the same services (unlimited free mainland phone calls (including international), (HD)TV through DSL, 18~20 Mbps DSL (30/100 Mbps in very specific area)).

What's worse is that you always pay the same, regardless of the speed you get. Like if you get 1Mbps, you'll pay the same price as 18Mbps.

<3 your store policy :d

OMG IT'S THE THIRD REICH!

It's not a matter of either a government network or purely competitive market. Using my home province as an example:



The general problem dragging down your respective countries' speeds is not the core infrastructure, it's the lack of penetration of quality high-speed to the majority of the rural areas. The vast majority of the time in these cases private ISPs simply deem the prospect of running cable out to outlying communities "unprofitable".

That's not the only issue. Again I was living exactly 4 kilometers (2.5 miles) away from Paris (you know the capital), yet my BW was 1 Mbits/s... Living in a crowded area (like any major suburb in the world).

No 100 Mbits/s Fiber Optic. Why ?

Answer is easy. I used to pay 30 eur/month for my shitty 1Mbps. Same for everyone living in my area. All ISPs were offering the same speed for the same price. Why would they hurry to implement new infrastructure and give us faster internet since we are stuck with our shitty 1Mbps and are forced to pay anyway ?

Developing a fiber optic network cost billions. Yet you're not even sure to get lot of customers because some people are just like "I'm fine with my 1Mbps line". Some are just too lazy to choose another ISP.

ISPs don't give a *** about home users, they're just taking their time and focusing on business market. (at least in here).

I don't think this is the place to have a debate about the ideological/philosophical nature of public/private politics.

My comment was more than in Japan's case, the massive country-wide fiber backbone was done as a giant public works project, similar to the transcontinental railroad, the national highway system, and other major projects were done in North America. As it was only done a few years ago, the system is the newest and nicest in the world. (And counter-intuitively, also the cheapest.) It's the same way in Korea, Finland, Sweden, France, etc.

Whether you ideologically or politically agree with such a use of public funds, or whether or not your particular country should or should not do the same, is an entirely separate topic.

Capitalist post is capitalist.

Finland on 3rd place >:D Finland beats Sweden once again! /hurray!

"Being at 4,500meters from my DSLAM would only get me 1.7 Mbps for example. (while I could "technically" get 8Mbps)."



Technically, if you are within 21,000 line-feet of you Dslam, you shoul be getting full throughput. Shouldn;t be any variance from that. What will truly affect it more is the restrictions your ISP has placed on DSLAM / router overhead, ports available to the routing system vs users w/ connections etc.

Not really. After 1.5 kilometer with ADSL1 technology (sorry I don't use feets :<), speed start to decrease (well this depend of the quality of your line as well off course).

Yet at 4km, I would get something like 1.7 Mbps but my ISP choose to block it at 1Mbps (always rounding it down, which is better anyway, less stability issue).

According to wiki :



So yeah for anything longer than 2km you're basically ***. (and that's the ATM speed on this graph, so IP value would be lower off course. 10Mbps ATM ~= 8Mbps IP). That's why I say that the average value for France in this study is completely wrong, since almost everyone still only have ADSL1/ADSL2+. And only like ~30% of users are <2km away from their DSLAM.

Now if that value is wrong for one country, might be wrong as well for others.

Bet you guys import your internet from sweden!

Incidentally, I don't get the misconception that Japan is a "tiny" country. It's larger in total land area than every country in Europe except Ukraine, (not including remote territories), and is at the 74th percentile world-wide. It's actually nearly identical in size to the US state of California, and 10th in the world in total population. (Again larger than every European nation.)

It must be from the relative population density in urban areas like Tokyo.

Yeah but lets face it european countries are tiny too. And come on it isn't even bigger than all of our 50 states. That's probably why american's think of it as tiny. Our country is too big. *** california alone beats out alot of countries in size population GNP etc