Dia on 24/10/2020 at 14:20
Yesterday the GOP posted Lord Dampnut's priorities for a second term on Twitter; I triple-checked to make sure it wasn't a joke. Omg.
GOP
@GOP
Pres. Trump is fighting for YOU! Here are some of his priorities for a 2nd term:
*Establish Permanent Manned Presence on The Moon
*Send the 1st Manned Mission to Mars
*Build World’s Greatest Infrastructure System
*Establish National High-Speed Wireless Internet Network
2:00 PM · Oct 23, 2020
(
https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/rnc-tweet-donald-trump-priorities-100701213.html)
Pyrian on 24/10/2020 at 19:18
Looks like socialism to me. :p
Legal Eagle making the case for Biden against Trump:
[video=youtube;d22Y7p3tER0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d22Y7p3tER0[/video]
june gloom on 24/10/2020 at 21:52
Rebuilding our infrastructure and establishing high-speed internet are good things. Too bad none of it will ever happen because capitalism.
SubJeff on 24/10/2020 at 23:29
It amazes me that the USA (and Australia, apparently) don't have decent internet all over.
In the last 14 years I've never had less than 10 Megabits per second, and that's been all over the country in various parts of town, in various types of accommodation. At the moment I get 64 Megabits per second on average, but we have fibre to the house. I don't even use the fibre options - the max I can get here is 900 Megabits per second, but it's with BT (yuk) and would be £55/month.
In fact, I think I'm getting ripped off. I should be getting 100 Megabits per second I reckon. Time for some phone calls.
Phatose on 25/10/2020 at 02:01
It's not really that surprising if you look at a population density map. That actually describes an awful lot of what goes on in this country.
Starker on 25/10/2020 at 04:32
Could it be? Is it finally time for the fabled Infrastructure Week that descends once every few months from the mists of time and if you blink you miss it?
SubJeff on 25/10/2020 at 05:47
Quote Posted by Phatose
It's not really that surprising if you look at a population density map. That actually describes an awful lot of what goes on in this country.
I had a look and the USA is reported as having much, much faster internet than the UK. What gives?
Gryzemuis on 25/10/2020 at 10:27
Speeds depend on local infrastructure.
Is there fiber ? Is there cable ? Or just old telephone copper wires ?
Reported speeds in the US are suspicious.
(
https://www.salon.com/2019/12/12/major-isps-colluded-with-fcc-to-lie-about-their-average-internet-speeds-report/)
(
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20191212/11543543567/fcc-helped-att-hide-crappy-broadband-speeds.shtml)
ISPs are allowed to use "averages" for whole areas. They are allowed to report best cases, and ignore worst cases. It's a mess. Their regulations body (the FCC) allows it. The result is that speeds on paper look a lot better than it is actually the case. Google for more details, if you're interested. It's a well known issue. The reason is that ISPs in the US get large subsidies, but they are required to make certain commitments. Lying about your achieved goals is cheaper than digging new cables in the ground.
I am 3,3 km from our local exchange. I had DSL (ADSL2+), 7 Mbps down, 768 Kbps up. Until last year October. I am now the proud user of a fiber connection. 50/50 Mbps (I chose the cheapest subscription, of course). We have our quirks in NL, regarding subscriber access. But slowly the situation is improving. While in the US, it seems ISPs are doing less to improve their infrastructure, and just focus on profits.
Yesterday I watched a UK tv-show ("Going Postal"). And a quote was: "remember, the goal is not to provide the best service. the goal is to provide the only service". Very true.
heywood on 25/10/2020 at 13:13
I've got copper to the home and a plan that is "up to" 200 Mbps. My speed test results are 150-180 Mbps and "real world" use like large downloads from fast sites top out around 100 Mbps. Generally speaking, in the US, if you live in an urban or suburban area, you will have a cable TV/internet service available with internet speeds similar to mine or better. Some places will have multiple providers to choose from, but most of us are stuck dealing with one cable TV monopoly. If you live in a rural area, it depends. In farm country, you'll have good internet. If you live up in the mountains or out in the desert in the middle of nowhere, you might be stuck with slow DSL or satellite.
Australia's broadband situation is easy to understand. Most of the population is concentrated where it's green and you can grow shit, which is on the Eastern and Southeastern coasts, the Southwestern tip (Perth) and a frontier town on the Timor sea (Darwin). Meanwhile, most of the land area is a huge desert. Even in the relatively populous areas on the East and Southeast, the population tends to be concentrated around the major metropolitan areas. The total population is only ~25m, and 2/3 of that is in the top 5 cities. Due to the low population density over most of the country, the cost of delivering broadband internet to rural areas cannot be recouped through customer subscriber fees. So it takes a huge government infrastructure project, which naturally became a political football.
Starker on 25/10/2020 at 13:45
I have a 70/70 (up/down) Mbps connection and I have to pay 19 euros per month for the pleasure. The fastest option available at my address is a 1 Gbit/s connection, but that would cost a whopping 99 euros every month.
And that's in a country that's supposedly technologically advanced and where politicians claim access to internet is a human right.
