And they would have got away with it too, if it weren't for that meddling kid.
We only need to respond with 2 words: Citation Needed.
Those are the theoretical limits, but in reality, no. We usually estimate about 50% of the advertised distances to be more realistic. Both in India and with our new unit in the US.
Except the New Zealand Bill of Rights - one of the pieces of legislature which would make up our equivalent of a constitution - has a clause much like the 4th Amendment - http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/DLM225523.html
This one is also worth a read http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2012/0024/latest/whole.html#DLM2136638
India and Finland have a tax treaty. If the taxes have been paid (whether in Finland or India) on a particular transaction or set of transactions, or profit in one or the other or both countries or several other conditions, and has otherwise been keeping up with it's fiscal responsibilities in that country, Nokia doesn't owe jack to India.
(May be oversimplifying the situation, but that's the gist).
I dunno, in my experience, a decent percentage of government officials in India are outright c**ts. And some of the laziest people on the face of the earth. The police are horrid, as well.
And I moved to India from Finland. Serves me right, I suppose.
Want to? They do it openly. It's in the license agreement for telecoms. The room & equipment have to be provided at the telco's expense. As well as the A/C, phone lines and other things.
Something like truenet.co.nz?
In the US, the "last mile" tends to be "the last 14 miles" People forget that the average country is a fraction of the size of the US, heck, some states are bigger than the majority of other countries.
Basically, the US would bump up against the edges of ALL OF EUROPE if laid over the top.
The comparisons, from the get go, are just plain stupid if they neglect these facts.
Tell me, where in Europe is the access as slow and expensive as the US? There aren't many. I may be oversimplifying it a bit, but the only significant difference between the US and EU is only really a technicality... we call the US a single country whereas we don't say the same about the EU. In reality, the US could be compared to the EU in many ways, with each member state being compared accordingly.
The US has federal laws and policies, just as the EU has EU-wide laws and policies, and each state with the US has it's own laws and policies, just as each country in the EU. Plus, the EU has 20+ languages and in some cases, were formerly enemies. Yet, somehow they've managed decent Broadband continent-wide despite all that.
Locally, there has been huge inroads in fiber penetration into all sorts of places that were data deserts in the last two or three years. Only now, it's one trenching crew for one company, then another from another company, and then a year later, a third.
Municipalities get tired of it, and people get tired of it. Which leads to resistance at the local board and ultimately, a lack of competition.
This you're actually right about - I'm in a reasonably small town in Southern IL right now and there are 7 companies who have laid or are laying underground fiber right now. I wanted to be #8, but was told (if I may paraphrase) it would be a cold day in hell - but they were more than happy to let me do aerial, and according to them, they have no plans to ban aerial cabling anytime soon.
I then came to an agreement with one of the underground operators to purchase access, so, for my customers, while most of the service [will] run on underground plant, the last few-hundred feet are aerial, and, apart from installing street-side cabinets here and there, I only have to get permission from the appropriate company to use the poles.
Your ISP installs equipment in your area. That equipment is VERY expensive. You'd be surprised how much actually.
...if you're paying over $100/port for any equipment, you're being ripped off. I've found DSL tends to be the most expensive equipment on this basis. Cable and OLTs less so.
In fact, your bill is likely heavily subsidized by the government and even other customers via fees and such. Your ISP figures out average usage in your area and then installs the equipment that will provide whatever speed they're trying to sell there. Not everyone uses 100% of their connection 100% of the time. If they did, your bill would be much more expensive. So the equipment that leads to your house CAN support the speed (usually) that you are paying for. And the equipment that feeds the remote in your area can usually support about 60% of users at max capacity.
Mostly true - it is a numbers game.
Now, the problem is that Netflix and services like it concentrate usage at specific times. Not only that but netflix, unlike other content providers, refuses to work with ISPs.
Are you sure? https://signup.netflix.com/openconnect
Google, for example has a department in charge of "peering" and when they have a contract with Level3 but plan to move to Sprint or something, they call up the ISPs and let them know in advance. The ISPs can then sign similar peering contracts with Sprint. Netflix is hostile in this area, they just switch... with no notice... and they leave the ISPs in the lurch. There are about 10 major players on the net, and Netflix is one of the biggest. When they just move all of their traffic to another network its equivalent to a stampede of elephants running to one side of your boat. The ISP either has to let customers suffer or sign a hasty contract with another carrier and take a loss on the previous commitment. Google doesn't do that, not even Microsoft does that.
What? They multi-home and work with AWS. If your traffic to Netflix is all of a sudden being routed through another AS, it's more likely that someone is throwing a tantrum like the one with L3 and whatnot a while ago. That doesn't necessarily mean Netflix itself has done anything, it may mean that (for example) L3 has decided to stop carrying Netflix traffic or something along those lines. They may or may not have had warning themselves, and both parties may or may not have had a point.
Anyways, I'm not sure usage based billing is the solution, but like it or not, it IS coming to this country. and yes, I work for an ISP. They are trying to be creative about it, but I doubt it'll come to anything. The easiest solution is to just charge you more. So that's what will happen.
Which one? Remind me to avoid it.
Should have asked the city to make ensure the franchise agreement is non-exclusive.
I'm in Southern Illinois right now and I've just finished negotiating 100mbit/s DIA on a 1gbit port for $10/mbit. The next hops will be St Louis > Chicago in one direction and Paducah > Atlanta in another. Including 3 phone-lines to the office, I'm coming out at $1090 + tax / month with capacity to upgrade if/when I need to.
Mediacom and Frontier wanted as much as $20/mbit (for DIA), although Frontier came down to $13 when I pushed them really hard. Verizon wanted $55/mbit.
Doesn't AT&T (at least) have a function on their phones whereby if it's moving at more than a certain rate (25mph?), it would cripple the phone and prevent you using it?
I seem to recall seeing it advertised by at least one of the carriers I was looking at, and while it may have been a subscription based service, since it is technically feasible and considering it's a law and all, shouldn't they be making it free/mandatory/default [assuming texting-while-driving really is a significant problem over and above the existing things that cause crashes]?
Surely this + voice dialing (ICE) would at least be a step to solve the problem... especially if voice dialing were only available to call emergency services and/or the ICE contact on the device.
Of course, we all know why something so sensible won't happen: profit.