Slick Vik Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 WASHINGTON — San Antonio is the seventh-largest city in the United States, a progressive and economically vibrant metropolis of 1.4 million people sprawled across south-central Texas. But the speed of its Internet service is no match for the Latvian capital, Riga, a city of 700,000 on the Baltic Sea.Riga’s average Internet speed is at least two-and-a-half times that of San Antonio’s, according to Ookla, a research firm that measures broadband speeds around the globe. In other words, downloading a two-hour high-definition movie takes, on average, 35 minutes in San Antonio — and 13 in Riga. The World Economic Forum ranked the United States 35th out of 148 countries in Internet bandwidth, a measure of available capacity in a country. Other studies rank the United States anywhere from 14th to 31st in average connection speed. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/30/technology/us-struggling-to-keep-pace-in-broadband-service.html?pagewanted=2&hp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
august948 Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 There are way too many variables to consider here. For instance how do they calculate average internet speed? High speed internet access is available in San Antonio, but if most users don't have it or most users are on dial up, does that affect how they calculate the averages? The article makes it sound like San Antonio, of all places, is just so backwater that it's not even connected to the internet. That's laughable and a good reason to critically question the things you read and documentaries you see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted December 30, 2013 Author Share Posted December 30, 2013 There are way too many variables to consider here. For instance how do they calculate average internet speed? High speed internet access is available in San Antonio, but if most users don't have it or most users are on dial up, does that affect how they calculate the averages? The article makes it sound like San Antonio, of all places, is just so backwater that it's not even connected to the internet. That's laughable and a good reason to critically question the things you read and documentaries you see. Read the full article the details you ask for are there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
august948 Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 Read the full article the details you ask for are there. I read the article and it doesn't give the methodology by which they are calculating the averages. It appears to be a thinly disguised apples-to-oranges comparison so they can complain about how the government doesn't supply subsidized internet access to all residents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTAWACS Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Is it really the US that's "struggling" or just some broke/cheapskate/miser consumers who for some reason do not have a fast connection?What a misleading headline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricco67 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Wiring the US is far more expensive than Europe by just the sheer size of the country. Hell, just get out of the cities into some of the remote parts of texas and you can see that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arche_757 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Is it really the US that's "struggling" or just some broke/cheapskate/miser consumers who for some reason do not have a fast connection?What a misleading headline. Its not just people being cheap, not all providers have run the fiber optics to all areas - which in turn will decrease the available options. Also, Latvia is much smaller than the US, or Texas. For example: Riga Metro (10,000 km2) is smaller than Houston Metro (26,000 km2). So its much easier to place fiber optics in a smaller area than in something larger. Take also the fact that Latvia as a whole is only 64,000 km2 and we can clearly see that size does matter. Also, Latvia has 1/3 the population of greater Houston. Now consider all the expanses of land between Houston and Dallas and Oklahoma City and Kansas City and Minneapolis and we can start to see that running fiber optics across this country is a gargantuan task. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 I read the article and it doesn't give the methodology by which they are calculating the averages. It appears to be a thinly disguised apples-to-oranges comparison so they can complain about how the government doesn't supply subsidized internet access to all residents. I think it gets down to whether one considers internet as a purely private good, or as infrastructure that benefits society as a whole, like roads, airports, landlines or sewers. If the latter, then it would be considered perfectly valid for it to be subsidized in some way, as are roads, airports, landlines and sewers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
names Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 I think it gets down to whether one considers internet as a purely private good, or as infrastructure that benefits society as a whole, like roads, airports, landlines or sewers. If the latter, then it would be considered perfectly valid for it to be subsidized in some way, as are roads, airports, landlines and sewers. http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/12/30/municipal_broadband_s_death_by_lobbyist_san_antonio_has_the_fiber_they_should.html And CPS Energy already has the fiber. So it's not a question of should a municipally owned utility spend money on building a fiber-optic network. It's a question of given that the municipally owned utility already has a fiber-optic network, shouldn't it do something with it? The Texas state Legislature, doing the bidding of local telecom firms, says no. It can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTAWACS Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Ah... Rick Perry and his cronies are at it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Subsidizing the Internet would give the government more excuses to monitor it (and frankly, that would be a reasonable argument to make) and to create laws like SOPA that would block access to certain sites that the government doesn't like (for whatever reason). Who would want that future? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
august948 Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 I think it gets down to whether one considers internet as a purely private good, or as infrastructure that benefits society as a whole, like roads, airports, landlines or sewers. If the latter, then it would be considered perfectly valid for it to be subsidized in some way, as are roads, airports, landlines and sewers.I think you could make a good case for internet as public infrastructure. The question is cost and speed of access and whether or not the access should be free or subsidised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
august948 Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 Subsidizing the Internet would give the government more excuses to monitor it (and frankly, that would be a reasonable argument to make) and to create laws like SOPA that would block access to certain sites that the government doesn't like (for whatever reason). Who would want that future?A very good point. Anyone know if this happens anywhere already? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 A very good point. Anyone know if this happens anywhere already? Well, there are a number of sites that China blocks, and just with one Google search, I found this comment on a Chronicle article. In China, the government owns the bandwidth, private companies rent it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricco67 Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Well, there are a number of sites that China blocks, and just with one Google search, I found this comment on a Chronicle article. In China, the government owns the bandwidth, private companies rent it out.that's because, y'know communist state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Subsidizing the Internet would give the government more excuses to monitor it (and frankly, that would be a reasonable argument to make) and to create laws like SOPA that would block access to certain sites that the government doesn't like (for whatever reason). Who would want that future? I hate to break the news, but they're monitoring it anyway. In the event, if the internet speed was to be considered an infrastructure requirement, the funding could well take place at a state level, not federal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 I hate to break the news, but they're monitoring it anyway. They sure do, but if you undermine the arguments against it, there's no chance of stopping future attempts to monitor and control it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted January 21, 2014 Author Share Posted January 21, 2014 Subsidizing the Internet would give the government more excuses to monitor it (and frankly, that would be a reasonable argument to make) and to create laws like SOPA that would block access to certain sites that the government doesn't like (for whatever reason). Who would want that future? It would help millions of people. Stop the fear mongering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 It would help millions of people. A vague, amorphous quote at best. Help millions of people do what? Have easy access to porn? Look at funny cat pictures? Play World of Warcraft in the comfort of their own home? Live more comfortable lives without actually doing anything? If you were to make a case for educational usage, make a case for having more Internet access in libraries, which they (mostly) do, and have been doing since the late 1990s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricco67 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 I'd be okay with treating Internet as a form of a utility. It's accessible to everyone, but would this drop the price? I don't know. high speed internet isn't a "Right" people should have, it's something that's nice to have. In my case, Netflix, YouTube, and school work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTAWACS Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 If ppl want internet access they should pay for it. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 If internet is to be considered infrastructure, the question isn't whether the public and businesses have a "right" to it, it's whether the applicable polity benefits in the aggregate to a degree that supports some amount of centralized funding. I don't have a "right" to a sewer system but I still have to pay taxes to ensure one is provided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 As an aside, I would gladly have the internet treated as infrastructure and tax-funded if that were the price to pay to retain net neutrality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted January 22, 2014 Author Share Posted January 22, 2014 A vague, amorphous quote at best. Help millions of people do what? Have easy access to porn? Look at funny cat pictures? Play World of Warcraft in the comfort of their own home? Live more comfortable lives without actually doing anything?If you were to make a case for educational usage, make a case for having more Internet access in libraries, which they (mostly) do, and have been doing since the late 1990s. It would give the access of information to everyone. There are certain interests that are against that, I guess you're in that category? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricco67 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 It would give the access of information to everyone. There are certain interests that are against that, I guess you're in that category?everyone should have easy access to water, but that doesn't mean it souks be given away for free. everything has a cost associated to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted January 22, 2014 Author Share Posted January 22, 2014 everyone should have easy access to water, but that doesn't mean it souks be given away for free. everything has a cost associated to it.Compare the cost of water to Internet. Also water has the infrastructure built everywhere whereas Internet doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricco67 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 How do you think water and Internet get to your home? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 [post eaten] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HTX Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Not trying to Hi jack this thread but earlier this year my mother traveled to Europe and called me from her cell phone to mine. The clarity was amazing compared to when we used the same phones from site to site in the US. You have to wonder why and the most reasonable explanation I can think of is that other countries do have better service whether it be phone or internet infrastructure. I don't think the size of our country is the only reason there has to be more to it. HTX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
august948 Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Compare the cost of water to Internet. Also water has the infrastructure built everywhere whereas Internet doesn't. Apples to oranges. Water is a necessity of life. We have to have it. Internet is a nice to have. We can live without it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.