Friday, February 27, 2015

Net dream

RtO doesn't have a lot to say about net neutrality except:

You have got to be very stupid to buy the carriers' argument that more regulation will stifle innovation or result in poorer service.

The Internet is unregulated now, and US carriers provide some of the slowest service on the planet.


30 comments:

  1. The Internet is unregulated now, and US carriers provide some of the slowest service on the planet.

    Link?

    (I'm betting, in advance, ignorance both of networks and geography.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. There's this:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/24/us-internet-speed_n_3645927.html

    Not mentioned in the story is that actually getting even the rates claimed by the providers is not easy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. [OP:] The Internet is unregulated now, and US carriers provide some of the slowest service on the planet.

    [Hey Skipper:] (I'm betting, in advance, ignorance both of networks and geography.)


    Man, I lost that bet.

    What I should have bet instead is that you completely mis-represented the source:

    The U.S. now has the ninth-fastest average Internet connection speed in the world, behind South Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Latvia, the Czech Republic and Sweden. That's a slip in the rankings: In the last Akamai report, the U.S. was eighth, with faster average connection speeds than Sweden.

    Given that Akamai surveys 243 countries to produce its "State of the Internet" report, ninth place might not seem too low. U.S. Internet providers, after all, contend with a bigger landmass -- and a larger population -- than those in South Korea or Japan.


    Pro-tip: Ninth is not "some of the slowest."

    And the HuffPo writer, while making a nod in sort of the right direction, fails to mention the number that really matters: population density.

    The US, at 85 people/mi^2, is 180th on that list.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Well, that explains why private providers are so much slower than socialized ones.

    Oh, wait, it doesn't?

    Whaddaya know?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well, that explains why private providers are so much slower than socialized ones.

    Geography matters -- it is far cheaper to provide high speed internet to densely populated areas.

    Which goes a long, long way to explaining why the US has a lower average speed than, say, Hong Kong, or Korea.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Oops!

    http://www.businessinsider.com/internet-speeds-korea-2014-4

    ReplyDelete
  10. Do you read your own links?

    You should.

    There's free WiFi just about anywhere you go, even at the airport. And if you travel a lot, you know free WiFi at an airport is nearly impossible to come by.

    Not only is much of Seoul blanketed in free wireless Internet ...


    This guy somehow is writing for Business Insider, while using an impossible concept three times in three sentences.

    South Korea population density: 1303/mi^2

    US: 85/mi^2.

    In a world where "free" is as likely to be found as sparkly pastel unicorns, the difference matters.

    Which your source completely failed to mention.

    ReplyDelete
  11. 'Manhattan's population density is 66,940 people per square mile (25,846/km²)'

    It was free to him, and so all the more impressive for its high quality, no?

    But your task was to explain why internet speeds are so lousy in Manhattan. Please stay on point.

    ReplyDelete
  12. A little dose of socialism works wonders.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/best-state-in-america-delaware-for-its-fast-internet/2015/03/06/fb4f5812-c355-11e4-ad5c-3b8ce89f1b89_story.html?hpid=z3

    ReplyDelete
  13. It was free to him ...

    And you counted yourself a business journalist? Seriously?

    But your task was to explain why internet speeds are so lousy in Manhattan ...

    Clearly, you did not read the post you wrote.

    And once you've cleared that hurdle, then shifted the goal post, you are not out of the woods (mixing metaphors is more fun than I would have imagined).

    I'm sure, based upon your implied assumptions, that New York is a paragon of market competition.

    Oh, wait, you are assuming facts not in evidence?

    Perish the thought.

    And put the surprise on hold.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Think of his free wi-fi in Korea as being like Welfare Queen Joni's free house in Iowa and then maybe it will become clear for you.

    I know you have a burr under your saddle about free stuff, but it makes no sense. People walking by our pawn shop get free wi-fi. No big deal.

    But I am puzzled why you would criticize me for allegedly (but not really) shifting a goal post when you have moved over to an entirely different field in a different sport. Whether he had to pay a fee for wi-fi in Korea has nothing to do with how fast the wi-fi was.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Think of his free wi-fi in Korea as being like Welfare Queen Joni's free house in Iowa and then maybe it will become clear for you.

    I know you have a burr under your saddle about free stuff, but it makes no sense. People walking by our pawn shop get free wi-fi. No big deal.


    This is precisely the economic fallacy that is required to be a progressive.

    His wifi isn't free because it didn't come magically into existence. Just because the cost isn't explicit doesn't mean it isn't there. It is embedded in the cost of his hotel room, or in his trip to Starbucks.

    People walking into your pawn shop may not pay for that particular instance of wifi, but your customers sure do, through higher prices. Of course, your wifi may well be cheap enough that the cost is small -- thank free market competition for that, btw -- but it is there nonetheless. If your wifi costs went to $10,000 per month, it sure wouldn't be "free" anymore.

    Which means it isn't free now.

    [OP:] You have got to be very stupid to buy the carriers' argument that more regulation will stifle innovation or result in poorer service.

    The Internet is unregulated now, and US carriers provide some of the slowest service on the planet.


    That part in bold is comically wrong. Not just a little wrong, but staring at the screen in complete amazement did I just read that holy cow kind of wrong.

    Never mind that, you got there through what I can only imagine is epic ignorance about network fundamentals. Which you compound by failing to read your own links. From your latest:

    It helps, of course, that Delaware is relatively small and sits along the busy I-95 corridor, where cell coverage and development are almost ubiquitous. By contrast, Alaska, Arkansas and Kentucky — three largely rural states where building Internet infrastructure is costly — are at the bottom of the rankings. The average Alaskan connects at just 7.2 Mbps, Akamai found.

    That is how you shifted the goal post — you made a fallacious claim about the United States, then shifted to New York City's internet speed as being an indictment of free markets, without knowing the first thing about why NYC's internet speeds are whatever they are.

    Then you shift yet again to New Jersey, which turns out to prove exactly what I asserted in the first place: that the comparison you were making between South Korea and the United States can only have come about through fundamental ignorance.

    Which you might have alleviated with a little basic research.

    Oh, and "Welfare Queen Joni's free house in Iowa" is a lie. Epistemology, at least the basics, isn't really that tough. You should check it out -- it would help contributing to the reputation progressives have for being nasty people.

    ReplyDelete
  16. So Joni is a welfare queen, lived in a free house.

    ReplyDelete
  17. http://gizmodo.com/why-americas-internet-is-so-shitty-and-slow-1686173744

    The second comment is interesting, too

    ReplyDelete
  18. As consumers demand more bandwidth for things like streaming HD movies, carriers must augment their networks—upgrade hardware, lay more fiber, hire more engineers, etc.—to keep traffic moving freely between them. But that costs big money—like, billions of dollars in some cases. Imagine the cost of swapping out the coaxial cables in every American home with fiber optic cables. It's thousands of dollars per mile according to some government records.

    The article wasn't making comparisons to anywhere else, so the author can be forgiven in ways you can't, but this is where "free" isn't: regardless of anything else, the cost per user just to replace the copper lines is at least 22 times greater in the US than S Korea; and, depending on the math (the difference between length and area) maybe 100 times more.

    Like I said, not part of his article. But it was very much part of your post -- making it a comparison either ignorant or invidious.

    So Joni is a welfare queen, lived in a free house.

    And you know this how, exactly?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Boo-freakin'-hoo:

    http://www.peterlewis.com/2015/02/05/oderint-dum-metuant/

    The gummint gave her family $37,000, enough for a nice house in Iowa at the time. Money is fungible.

    ReplyDelete
  20. My VPN is throwing a fit at that link.

    The gummint gave her family $37,000 ...

    What, exactly, do you mean by "gave"? Not Clinton speak, but using the English language as an honest person would.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Try this, it's the second post from top:

    http://www.peterlewis.com/

    Gave as in 'to give,' the way people give money to Sheriff Mack

    ReplyDelete
  22. How about trying something else -- that link flagged as being malware infected. Just like the other one.

    Gave as in 'to give,' the way people give money to Sheriff Mack.

    Regardless of what the actual facts are about Joni Ernst, you are clearly at sea on this whole "give" concept.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I will tell Peter about the warning.

    Mack got the 'take' part down pat, however. Funny how TPers hate them takers except when they are on the taking end.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Mack got the 'take' part down pat ...

    I strongly suspect that you are adhering to type, and stating as fact that about which you are actually clueless.

    Still standing by for any evidence that Ernst was lying about her own life experiences.

    Until then, it appears quite certain that you are.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Just because you didn't like the evidence doesn't mean it wasn't evidence.

    People lie about their own life experiences all the time. It's called a resume. Or Chris Kyle's autobiography.

    Sheesh.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Just because you didn't like the evidence doesn't mean it wasn't evidence.

    You started this particular ode to monkey poo flinging by citing a completely evidence free Doktor Zoom article -- at that point, you were making a defamatory claim in the complete absence of knowledge: that made you complicit in a lie.

    Rather than acknowledge your error, you have subsequently doubled down, engaging in irrelevancies, hypocrisy, and citing people with no knowledge than you have as contradicting her lived experience. Lining up enough poo flingers does not evidence make.

    And your latest offering is still flagging as malware.

    Which means, with regard to Ernst, as well as Eastwood and Robertson, you are a liar with exactly the same defamatory itch which seems to reside almost solely with progressives.

    ReplyDelete
  27. 'complete absence of knowledge'

    Really? I lived in Iowa for over 10 years.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Next door to Ernst? Did you go to the bus stop with her every day?

    Bold prediction, I know, but I'll bet big on No and No.

    A complete absence of knowledge.

    But plenty of monkey poo.

    ReplyDelete