Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re: We are returning to the dark ages. (Score 1) 99

We are descending into a dark age. We have a culture of death, where we've replaced reproduction with immigration. This has been true for decades, and is becoming more pronounced with the passage of time. We have too many elderly, and our women are facing ever increasing pressure to choose service over family, creating a spiral effect. We will reach a point where we don't have the numbers to keep the infrastructure going. Our modern technological society relies on myriad resources being available, and as those resources become unavailable, all the knowledge in the world won't matter. Once we're unable to implement our discoveries and designs, people will forget them.

As we became more advanced, our creations became more delicate. The more delicate they are, the quicker archeological evidence of them deteriorates. There is no reason to believe this hasn't happened before.

ISIS are standing in opposition to this pattern, but I doubt they will be effective enough to prevent it. I'd say a dark age is pretty much guaranteed.

Comment Re:Everyone's phone, DSL and copper (Score 1) 161

The phrase is sort of used in two ways. As I used above, to refer to connectivity to less populated areas and to refer to the final leg to the premise... Obviously there is nothing prohibiting running fiber directly to the premise, there is fiber terminating on premise at my home right now.

Generally speaking, when people are talking about limits on broadband in the US we are talking about later as applied to the former. There isn't even a beginning to a valid excuse for a Telco not having fiber on "the last mile" in every residence in a densely populated area.

Verizon firmly established that it was easily accomplished with FIOS the map splitting I mentioned above is why everyone else hasn't needed to do the same to be competitive. While FIOS provides a low latency and stable connection up to 500mbps. In the same token, the reason 500mbps is so expensive from Verizon is also that same map splitting (combined with Verizon polymorphing between being a phone company and ISP depending on what regulations suit them). Instead of multiple providers competing on that fiber infrastructure driving the prices down and the speeds up (500 is an arbitrary cap) Verizon simply has to beat one competitor at most in any given area.

Comment Re:What year is this? (Score 1) 161

One HD netflix stream would use most of that pipe and the telcos artificially throttle it causing all your "this can't be played at this time" and stuttering. Sounds like you are watching low quality streams.

How is paying to the evil telco better than paying to the evil cable company?

The issue is not so much what you need as being entitled to the best access that can reasonably be provided. If you currently have 12mbps dsl (which should be delivering 12mbps) then there is absolutely no reason you shouldn't have a 1gbps link available other than telcos refusing to upgrade infrastructure. Fiber runs can go for thousands of miles, I'm pretty sure they can reach you.

Now, if you simply choose a slower speed on purpose, paying that $6/mo that link should reasonably cost for dedicated bandwidth that is another story. 640gps chips run about $600/ea last time I looked and provide that bandwidth bi-directionally two ways.. They'll last about 10-15 years on average. So lets call it 10. It takes maybe $5k to build a box around those chips around it but then the box will cost maybe $800 if deployed everywhere on scale (this is what any telco can and should do not off the shelf from cisco and the like). So that is $12.5 cents per full duplex gbps so 1gbps AND 1gbps down maxed at the same time... once every ten years and that is only going down over time. Of course that is at the DC not to the premise. Just one of those chips will provide 10 64gbps links or 64 10gbps links over fiber or copper. With those distribution links there is absolutely no reason that nearly everywhere in the lower 48 that is called the last mile (think rural density, rough terrain can still be an issue) could have 1gbps service. Allowing for normal service tiers 100mb up/down connections for $12.50/mo are very reasonable. Maybe double that for the most rural areas. In the cities it should be more like 1gbps for $50/mo.

Comment Re:Everyone's phone, DSL and copper (Score 1) 161

Yes but lets be clear, there is no technical or practical barrier to keeping you that fiber. Fiber links span the globe are work over ridiculously long range. There isn't even a practical or technical barrier keeping it from most places called the last mile. The true last mile is nowhere in the continental US it's the arctic and at sea even there nothing is actually blocking long flying fleets of blimps delivering wireless that can provide much lower latency links than Sat connections.

The problems aren't technical, they aren't even financial, the problems are major providers splitting the nation in such a way that there are only two at most in any particular place competing as minimally as possible and with as little overlap as possible because there is a higher profit in splitting the map than a race to max service for bottom pricing. Why upgrade infrastructure when people have no choice but to buy what you are selling for what has become an essential commodity?

Comment Re: Everyone's phone, DSL and copper (Score 1) 161

Then you neighbor wasn't aware of VOIP or the evils of net neutrality have kicked and the telco is making voip services suck. If you have functional internet you should have voice communication, including the option of termination to phone #. If that fails in a truly epic disaster, that's why we all have radios.

Comment Re:What year is this? (Score 2) 161

And there is also still no excuse for the infrastructure not to have been upgraded to fiber by now. The telcos are just doing the absolute minimum they can, squeezing every obsolete drop of connectivity out of outdated infrastructure possible. For reference, in a real city you can have ridiculously overpriced 500mbps now in most places in the US and that really should be 1gbps minimum but even in large cities if you are serviced by only one major telco you are likely still limited to only one double digit speed option.

If it's 20mbps and you actually get that speed all the time then that at least is viable even if it's artificially slow.

Comment Re:What year is this? (Score 1) 161

You certainly could get something much better than DSL if your carrier could be bothered. That is your only choice because they have a monopoly or duopoly (which isn't really any better than a monopoly).

I say this assuming you are in what is typically called the last mile rather than the actual last mile so far from civilization where there are no phone lines and sat communications are your only option. If you are in the arctic or at sea DSL capabilities may indeed be reasonable. To a point anyway, there is no particular reason high flying blimps couldn't be providing reasonable wireless by now.

Comment Re:What year is this? (Score 1) 161

"Viable still applies if it's being sold, and lot of people are on it.

According to this [digitaltrends.com] (which is from 2013), 18% of American internet usage was on DSL."

That's only true if those people have a legitimate choice and weren't duped into picking an obsolete slow connection by a monopoly refusing to modernize.

The article mentions 6mbps, that isn't fast enough to support many modern and common household internet usages which means customers are being sold a system which is not viable. You might be able to sell wooden slugs to people from the country as subway tokens, that doesn't make them viable.

Slashdot Top Deals

Power corrupts. And atomic power corrupts atomically.