Wireless tech is a flash in the pan. The gear has to be replaced every few years as it ages out.
Contrast that to fiber, you install it once and use it for decades.
Government should only be subsidizing permanent infrastructure.
204 karma · joined November 3, 2020
Contrast that to fiber, you install it once and use it for decades.
Government should only be subsidizing permanent infrastructure.
Upping those 2G backhauls to 10G is simple and cheap, however.
You are also totally overselling the capabilities of your Fiberhood router.
P.S. Your website in the paper is defunct and the whitepaper on the site in your profile is non-existent.
However, very seldom do you need or want to go that far on land since very, very few places worth connecting are more than 400 km from somewhere else.
Repeatered systems can go thousands of miles and the repeater sites are handy for local breakout.
On land it’s usually easier and cheaper to use huts with power.
The US is about the same size as Europe.
Size is not a reason why the US has lack of access to high speed internet.
Yeah, no.
Even Comcast stopped using DPI.
DPI is a scourge imposed mainly by US cell carriers on their customers. Wireline ISPs don’t need it.
Countries with working regulatory bodies do not have issues with DPI.
Instead, monopoly ISPs will run their peering links hot and force any content providers to buy paid peering directly.
Because the price is a very large multiple of market prices.
The Korean ISPs are using their termination monopoly to rent seek.
> I've yet to see a reason that Netflix/twitch/etc. having to pay for the infrastructure they profit massively from is a bad thing.
Netflix/twitch/etc. already pay for their global infrastructure to bring services to Korea.
Korean ISPs are already paid by their users for the Korean infrastructure. It is totally unreasonable for Korean ISPs to be double dipping for something they have already paid for.
It is not Netflix/twitch/etc that are originating the traffic, but Korean end users REQUESTING the traffic. The Korean end users paid for Internet access, the Korean ISPs should deliver.
To reiterate, the Internet is not a PUSH medium. The Internet is a PULL medium.
In the good all days, all content was hosted in the US. Is that what the Korean ISPs want to go back to? Are they itching for doing all that investment into billion dollar subsea cable systems?
> If they have to pay a larger share, it means that services that don't use as much can be charged a much more reasonable rate
How about no?
Market prices for bandwidth are a fraction of a penny per gigabyte.
A fraction of a penny isn’t a problem, but Korean ISPs price gouging is.
IP transit costs per GB are a fraction of a hundredth of a penny.
It barely makes any sense to bill consumers per GB on any terrestrial network.
In Northern Europe a typical 4G SIM with a monthly data quota is $9 per month. An unlimited 4G SIM with all you can eat data is $18. How many price points do you need in between?
Heck, international 4G/5G data roaming fees are capped at $2/GB and by 2027 the cap will be $1/GB.
Pay attention to your speed when you are driving. Most, if not all, modern cars have cruise control where you can set your speed if you are having trouble following the speed limits.
Every pundit on the planet would make hay of the matter and everybody and their dog would know to not purchased Apple products since it breaks their Wi-Fi.
All Apple would get out of this is a huge black eye and no upside.
Regardless of if an ISP offers IPv6 or not, they still need IPv4. Thus if you are small and/or have enough IPv4 address space, IPv6 is just an additional cost and burden.
The support burden of IPv6 isn’t trivial when you do not control the end user devices.
IPv6 bandwidth isn’t cheaper nor more performant. From a business perspective, the only thing you get from IPv6 is a larger address space and a smaller need for (CG)NAT.
There is an incentive to deploy IPv6 if your (CG)NAT costs and/or the costs to acquire more IPv4 addresses is larger than the costs to deploy and support IPv6.
The tipping point is different for each ISP.
It also depends on the regulator environment whether you are forced to deploy IPv6 or not.
Apple has a vested interest in IPv6 working on mobile, but benefits nothing from disabling IPv4.
FYI, with dedicated servers you don’t pay for colo separately. It’s included in the monthly fee. Bandwidth also, although on low end plans bandwidth might be limited or metered above some threshold.
I tried twice already to use Dystopia, but I can’t really force myself. Probably just for the best to give up on Reddit.
The EU disagrees with you. A certain percentage of power generation is mandated to come from renewables and nuclear is specifically excluded. IIRC there are no means for power companies to refuse feed-in of renewables.
> They want to because it's the cheapest source of power at the time.
The cheapness is mainly due to the artificial construction of the pricing mechanism.
Variable renewable generation should be priced differently from non-variable fossile free generation.
> Obviously nuclear power is economically viable if you use price-fixing to make it economically viable, but that is a huge divergence from the way our economy normally operates.
It's not a matter of price fixing, but rather of a more rational cost allocation.
Variable renewables are free riders on other generation methods.
Obviously nuclear power is economically viable if you use price-fixing to make it economically viable, but that is a huge divergence from the way our economy normally operates.
Hydrogen generation does not have a flexible power demand, because as you the electrolysis ramps up and down efficiently goes to zero.
The nuclear guy from Germany didn’t make any particularly wild claims.
All the while the renewables guy in the middle from the UK ignored the elephants in the room:
- renewables as backed by gas peaking plants
- other than hydro, there is no grid storage
- hydrogen is difficult
Is this generally true?
The local Wikipedia says nuclear ramps up or down at 5%/min. This is faster than any other method of generation.
When prices recently went negative, it was on the news that they ramped down production at the nuclear power plants.