Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

All New Homes In China Must Have Fiber Optic Internet Connections

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the a-fiber-in-every-garage dept.

China 202

redletterdave writes "Only a small number of U.S. cities can boast fiber optic connections, but in China, it's either fiber or bust. China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology has now ordered all newly built residences to install fiber optic connections in any city or county 'where a public fiber optic telecom network is available.' The new standards will take effect starting on April 1, 2013, and residents will be able to choose their own ISP with equal connections to services. The Chinese government reportedly hopes to have 40 million families connected to fiber networks by 2015."

cancel ×

202 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Sounds Too Good to Be True ... (5, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560263)

I'm pretty sure internet services providers and the telecommunications market in China is dominated by two or three massive companies [arstechnica.com] just like it unfortunately is in the states.

However, even China is offering something Google and Verizon aren’t here in the US: Open access, and the choice of multiple service providers once the fiber is installed.

Um, yeah so you can pick from China Telecom and China Unicom [wikipedia.org] which are both -- SURPRISE SURPRISE -- state run and controlled providers. So, yeah, go ahead and select between Super Auspicious Provider A and Premium Auspicious Provider B and think you have a choice just like Cox and Comcast are two sides of the same inept coin.

According to the China Daily report, the Chinese government hopes to have “40 million families connected to fiber networks by 2015,” which is almost one-third of the country’s entire population.

Emphasis mine. Anyone see a believable plan on how that's going to happen? I mean, I bet every government hopes to have a third of its nations homes on fiber networks by 2015 ... that sounds like a rather expensive project that you're not going to see a return on until the state owned providers pay it back though. You've got a state owned and state controlled newspaper telling you about something unbelievably awesome enforcing some totally unrealistic (unless there are few fiber neighborhoods) regulation. Am I the only one saying that I will applaud them when it's actually in place and working?

2015 is two years away. Um, yeah, they had better get crackin'. Well, I guess when you can just force the poorer farming people to work for free [unpo.org] it might be possible! That little project was called “Speed up the Roads and Enrich the People” hahaha. Here's your shovel, comrade. Now start digging until you're enriched.

The skeptic in me is just thinking that the home builders in China just need to pay off one more inspector to get a structure standing. Hell, their sheet rock and cement are clearly bribed through quality control -- why not structural, electrical and fiber officials?

Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... (3, Insightful)

ButchDeLoria (2772751) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560315)

Of course it's too good to be true, just look at the deployment date of the standards.

I smell alterior motives... (4, Funny)

swschrad (312009) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560383)

you can choose from Red Army #3 ISP, or Domestic Security Glorious Revolution ISP #1, or Internal Enforcement ISP #7...

Re:I smell alterior motives... (1)

ButchDeLoria (2772751) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560491)

Harr dee harr. My point is, this is probably just an elaborate April Fools joke by the Chinese government.

Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42560345)

I agree with your skepticism. I think the bigger question is what's the politburo is trying to accomplish as a whole--not just with the internet. I think what people have to understand is that every company in China is owned by the communist government--whether covertly or overtly, just look at who founded Huawei for an example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren_Zhengfei). China is slowly taking over the general aviation businesses in the US either by buying them out or requiring that that a China-based company be a partner to sell aircraft in China--just look at Cessna's LSA plan for example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_162#Chinese_production_controversy).

Auspicious (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42560357)

"You keep using that word..."

Perhaps you mean "suspicious"?

Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42560415)

I think this might work. Mandating a modern connection is a smart thing to do. And its basically no different than mandating that new houses be connected to other public utilities like water, electric, or sewer. And its smart because it loads the capital expense of the network connection into the build cost of the house versus inefficiently pulling cable whenever someone new wants service.

Sadly our corrupt politicians in the US choose to legislate anti-competitive measures; such as outlawing municipal broadband projects. (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/south-carolina-passes-bill-against-municipal-broadband/)

Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560689)

That helps some but you are still left with the internal wiring. Unless there are some mandates in that regard, the usefulness of that fiber connection will be limited.

Even relatively low end streamer appliances benefit from a real, wired ethernet connection.

Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42561521)

It might be a forest through the trees situation, but I'm not seeing the problem you see. At the minimum, just like with normal communications wiring such as coaxial cable or phone lines, the fiber will go to a POP box that converts the signal to to a connection format that the property owner can use. Optimally, new houses built will have internal wiring for ethernet outlets to accompany the phone line, cable line, and power jacks installed at build time. Older houses can be retrofit in the same way new cable outlets are put into a house now. We're talking comm lines, not electrical lines where self installed homeowner screwups could potentially cause block fires.

Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... (2)

icebike (68054) | about a year and a half ago | (#42561543)

That helps some but you are still left with the internal wiring. Unless there are some mandates in that regard, the usefulness of that fiber connection will be limited.

Even relatively low end streamer appliances benefit from a real, wired ethernet connection.

Think of the backhaul capabilities fiber offers compared to copper. (Also think of the copper savings).
Also think of digital TV capabilities.

The usefulness of the fiber may not be as limited as you think.

Sure, there may be some home monitoring capabilities as well because the backhaul allows easier monitoring capabilities (video or audio) within the household, office, or school.

You've already seen announcements [gizmodo.com] of in-household video monitoring via cable boxes. Hard to tell if these are truthful simply planned for Skype support [engadget.com] .

Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... (5, Interesting)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560433)

China Telecom and China Unicom which are both ... two sides of the same inept coin.

Except the are not inept. Internet service in China is far cheaper, faster, more reliable, and more pervasive than what you find in the USA. Since these are SOEs, they are not entirely profit driven, but also consider wider societal goals, such as the economic and business benefits of a well connected population. There are certainly downsides to authoritarian socialism, but building out public infrastructure isn't one of them.

Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42560749)

China Telecom and China Unicom which are both ... two sides of the same inept coin.

Except the are not inept. Internet service in China is far cheaper, faster, more reliable, and more pervasive than what you find in the USA. Since these are SOEs, they are not entirely profit driven, but also consider wider societal goals, such as the economic and business benefits of a well connected population. There are certainly downsides to authoritarian socialism, but building out public infrastructure isn't one of them.

It's quite amusing that this is flagged as '2, Troll'. It does read a bit like a advertisement.

What does amount to reliability in China? Is is the ability to connect to chinese services (Which I think is likely) or ability to connect to the "corrupted" western world. Even in europe I consider the most important facility to connect to is local services, like the bank, not the fact that I can browser random American Big Corporation Web Sites, or websites describing how to create a disk drive emulator using secure digital cards for my "brand new" amiga.

Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42561001)

Any market or industry that relies on the monopoly power of the state is inherently inept. There's no motivation to innovate, as there's no competition and no profit. And, I don't think you can say it's cheaper when the true cost of it is hidden by government subsidy, as well as the reasons stated above. Speed, reliability, and pervasiveness will vary wherever you go -- I'm sure China's no exception. That's the whole point of this project, after all, which is to make even greater speeds more pervasive.

Sure, any government can collect money from its citizens and throw it toward a given industry -- that takes no skill or innovation whatsoever -- but few can deny their people would be better served by entities who have the continuous motivation to bring about the best product for the lowest cost. China has learned this in other markets and industries, as is evident in their recent economic rise. In markets where they haven't learned this, such as telecom, they will always be chasing the true innovators that are able to thrive in the free market.

Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42561211)

Unfortunately, certain markets like cellular and internet can only support a few major entities at any given time, at which point collusion takes effect because the existing entities do not need to fear newcomers undercutting them.

Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42561511)

Fiber optic cables and cable paths can be shared to the point that a near infinite amount of ISPs can provide services over them. Similar things can be said of wireless, but currently, to a much lesser degree.

What you call a limitation of the free market is actually a problem brought about by government mandated monopoly. Even so, the history of the Internet and the myriad available options to those in sufficiently populated areas contradicts your conspiratorial claims of collusion.

The problem with the collusion claim is that, if some are greedy enough to collude with others to keep prices high, some will be greedy enough to break the collusion agreement or not collude at all in order to undercut those still in collusion and reap the profits. That boogeyman has been debunked over and over again in theory and in practice. Yet, leftists continue to faithfully repeat the tired claim . . .

Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42561283)

There are certainly downsides to authoritarian socialism, but building out public infrastructure isn't one of them.

Seriously? No corruption in building out public infrastructure under authoritarian socialism? No bribery to allow using substandard materials or construction methods?

Wow, authoritarian socialism is a utopian miracle!

Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42561355)

There are certainly downsides to authoritarian socialism, but building out public infrastructure isn't one of them.

Seriously? No corruption in building out public infrastructure under authoritarian socialism? No bribery to allow using substandard materials or construction methods?

Wow, authoritarian socialism is a utopian miracle!

Calm down, calm down. The GP troll was just trying to say "the trains run on time" while attempting to bypass everyone's anti-fascism mental filter in the process.

Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42561573)

There are certainly downsides to authoritarian socialism, but building out public infrastructure isn't one of them.

Seriously? No corruption in building out public infrastructure under authoritarian socialism? No bribery to allow using substandard materials or construction methods?

Wow, authoritarian socialism is a utopian miracle!

That's actually quite amusing considering the problems the american basic infrastructure has had, that includes maintenance. Capitalism will drive their trains and power on their lines until they are complete rubbish and break down before they are fixed. I'd however point out that China nor Russia, were authoritarian socialism, they were communist, which quite frankly, isn't socialism. Atleast the way socialism works in Europe is driving the interests of the good of the people. (This doesn't necessarily mean what the people want, like with the Greece problem, but what they think is good for the people).

Another attack on anonyminity (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42561357)

If everyone is connected at home, there will be no need for Internet cafe's. Traffic to/from homes in China is already traceable to the person who registered the telephone. I imagine that the fiber will work the same way.

Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42561443)

I'm sorry but have you ever lived in mainland China? Internet service there for anything other than local Chinese sites is pathetic. Even local sites have speed issues sometimes. Not to mention the insane/random filtering. So they will sell you 5mbps, 10mbps, 25mbps but cannot guarantee the speeds on any of them.

Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... (2)

GPLHost-Thomas (1330431) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560455)

There's something you got to realize. Having 40 millions families connected to fiber in China, equals to have 2 major cities to switch to fiber. That's really doable.

What's not right, is whey they say that 40 million families represent one-third of the country’s entire population. That's in fact one third of the CONNECTED entire population. That's a big difference.

Apart from that, I'm totally with you concerning the "choice". China Telecom or China Unicom are both crap when it comes to international connectivity. Though it's better and better.

The big joke though, is that even if you get fiber to the home, you only get 20 Mbits down, and ... tadaaaa ... 512 Kbits up! For that kind of connectivity, using fiber is overly stupid. ADSL is enough.

Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42560693)

The big joke though, is that even if you get fiber to the home, you only get 20 Mbits down, and ... tadaaaa ... 512 Kbits up! For that kind of connectivity, using fiber is overly stupid. ADSL is enough.

And in ten years when you want to upgrade you would have to install fiber in every house. By install fiber in the houses you only need to upgrade the connection to the house later.
Going for ADSL directly only makes sense if you plan to tear the house down within ten years.

Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42560469)

Hell, their sheet rock and cement are clearly bribed through quality control -- why not structural, electrical and fiber officials?

Because part of the fiber installation contains a few little chips that better enable the Chinese govt. to monitor what the resident is doing. Eventually, there will even be a few strategically placed cameras.

Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... (1)

Sperbels (1008585) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560671)

What are they doing? Eating, sleeping, watching TV, masturbating. It can't be that interesting.

Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42560737)

. . . you can pick from China Telecom and China Unicom which are both -- SURPRISE SURPRISE -- state run and controlled providers . . . just like Cox and Comcast are two sides of the same inept coin.

Wrong!

Cox and Comcast are separate entities in competition with each other. While they generally are not competing for the same customers, their pricing and service offerings do contribute to the competitive ISP market in the US. While you may not be able to choose a different cable-based ISP, you are generally able to choose from several different ISPs offering several different services at several different price points, which is one of the primary advantages of our free market system. Our system, far from inept, brought about the Internet itself and associated technologies that the Chinese, as well as the rest of the world, now want greater access to.

While China's state-run monopoly of their telecom market may be able to throw large amounts of cash at growing greater accessibility, they will continue to chase the lead of those making the real innovations brought about by free enterprise and the free market.

Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... (2)

maxwell demon (590494) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560801)

Our system, far from inept, brought about the Internet itself

The internet was developed by the free market? And I thought DARPA played a major role ...

Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42561109)

Then, you thought wrong. The Internet as we know it today was created by the free market system.

I know you government-worshiping liberals love to make fantastic claims that Al Gore and the government created the Internet, but they didn't. They created some of the early infrastructure and protocols that eventually became what we all know as the Internet, but it was the free market that innovated technologies from text screens and modems to high definition displays and high speed fiber optic connections.

Please . . .

Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... (2)

maxwell demon (590494) | about a year and a half ago | (#42561395)

I don't see how the advance of the display technology is in any way linked to the internet infrastructure, other than producing more demand for bandwidth. Indeed, I'm pretty sure display technology would have advanced even without the internet; the gaming industry was probably much more a drive to this.

Not to mention that displays are clearly not infrastructure, so it's irrelevant in this discussion anyway.

And no, I'm not government-worshipping. But I'm also not government-demonising or market-worshipping. There are things which are better done by the market, and there are things better done by the government.

sounds like you are a bit jealous, and nieve (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42560783)

ahh john, your lack of understanding of Chinese determination makes me laugh. you see john, china may be lacking some civil liberties, but it surely is not a country of lazy, uninspired sit-arounds like the united states. Im sure behind the red curtain they are laughing as hard as I am right now at your pathetic sentiment. Do you think once during the housing boom in the USA the US government had any interest whatsoever in securing USA as the top place for connectivity in the world? FUCK NO! Their primary concern was keeping that bubble going and letting bankers, banks, financial people, and home builders reap massive profits. The united states government could give a fuck about the american people technology wise, and *Anything* that has even benefited the american people IT infrastructure-wise has come from private industry (at a hefty bloated price). the united states government is a broken, useless, wasteful, retarded piece of non-working, never-will-work piece of shit, and our actual infrastructure (such as building the interstate in the 20th century - a new interstate for internet) will never be realized in my lifetime - and if china has fiber and the USA doesn't, it's going to make us look like a bunch of fucking retards.

Also john, the nice thing about China is that at least there is a quasi dictator in place to put a fucking foot down. Their said dictator, president, whatever they are - they can't be bought by hollywood. They don't give a shit about international telecoms OR hollywood john. The telecom companies and the entertainment industry have a huge vested interest in keeping your internet connection slow, so that you have a harder time pirating their material. Telecoms price gouge their bandwidth so that we never see true bandwidth increases, and the huge government subsidy's that *have* went to the telecoms with the intention of upgrading networks country-wide has been pocked by them blindly without anyone saying a word.

I look at china right now as the USA before world war 2. HUGE manufacturing capacity and industry, and with the nationalistic mind set can that “40 million families connected to fiber networks by 2015,” would seem trivial for them to pull off now.

You may not like the Chinese, but judging from their actions but at least they can't be bought and paid for like your precious USA gov

Don't underestimate China (1)

Kergan (780543) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560795)

Keep China's high population, the latter's geographical repartition (mostly to the east), its economy's high growth rates by western standards, and the fact that it's a developing country (still under-equipped) all in mind. Not to mention its government's authoritarianism. In that light, 40 million connected households in two years is not unrealistic imho.

Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... (2, Insightful)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560811)

It's a lot easier & cheaper to deploy infrastructure where there is none rather than replace existing infrastructure. It'll add cost to building the homes & laying the fiber, but it'll ultimately be a lot cheaper than doing it later. I'd like to see more countries follow suite actually minus the human rights problems that China always seems to be at the epicenter of.

Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... (2)

Bengie (1121981) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560927)

According to the China Daily report, the Chinese government hopes to have “40 million families connected to fiber networks by 2015,” which is almost one-third of the country’s entire population.

Average family size is a hair over 4. 40mil families is about 160mil people, or about 1/8 of their population. I could be missing something.

Re:Sounds Too Good to Be True ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42560943)

All new homes? Does that include new caves? http://www.odditycentral.com/pics/21st-century-cavemen-30-million-chinese-live-in-caves.html

One question. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42560297)

How hard is it to learn Chinese?

Re:One question. (0)

logjon (1411219) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560321)

I think I'll continue paying my $30 a month for cable. I'm fine with that.

Re:One question. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42561029)

where the hell are you getting cable for $30/month ??

Re:One question. (0)

logjon (1411219) | about a year and a half ago | (#42561127)

OPSEC

Re:One question. (4, Funny)

the_other_chewey (1119125) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560591)

How hard is it to learn Chinese?

Very [pinyin.info] .

Re:One question. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42561603)

Easy. I've know it since birth.

Sounds good (4, Insightful)

crazyjj (2598719) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560299)

in any city or county 'where a public fiber optic telecom network is available.'

Any how many of these houses will meet that rather essential qualification?

Hell, I could install a fiber network in my house and run it out to the curb. But that isn't going to make any difference if there is nothing to connect it to, now is it?

Re:Sounds good (0)

AaronLS (1804210) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560463)

"But that isn't going to make any difference if there is nothing to connect it to, now is it?"

Obviously they realize this, hence the very reason for the clause you quoted.

Re:Sounds good (1)

nschubach (922175) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560473)

Currently, the only cities with high speed fiber connectivity include Chenggong, Zhengzhou, and even Nova Cidade de Kilamba, in Africa.

Re:Sounds good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42560721)

What?

Kutztown (the city and not the school) have had fiber runs to home for several years now. It isn't 100% of the town although it does include much of it. It is a small town. 4,000-5000 year round residents I think and another 5 or 10k students attending the university at the edge of town. I think about half the school population though lives off campus (in town or lives in surrounding cities/at home).

Re:Sounds good (1)

Sique (173459) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560741)

Don't forget Geyer, Germany, which has a town wide fiber network since 25 years now.

Re:Sounds good (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560495)

Any what word you might have missed?

It does make a difference! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42560673)

Hell, I could install a fiber network in my house and run it out to the curb.But that isn't going to make any difference if there is nothing to connect it to, now is it?

But you can say, "Fiber Optic connected"!

Too bad (0)

lazarus (2879) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560323)

Too bad you can't go anywhere...

One of the benefits of government-run everything is that big infrastructure is easier to mandate and implement. The downsides are, well, freedom...

Re:Too bad (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560425)

One of the benefits of government-run everything is that big infrastructure is easier to mandate and implement. The downsides are, well, freedom...

Infrastructure is one of the few things that the free market manages badly. Sewer, garbage, electricity, communications, and roads have all fared poorly when given over to for-profit corporations. Almost always the service is poor, overpriced, and under-maintained. With government control of the same, it happens less often (but still too often). And then there's the hybrid systems... they're economic lovecraftian horror beasts, devouring everything it comes in contact with. Take taxi medallions as an example... horrible, horrible idea. I can feel its tenacles wrapping around my leg just thinking about it. Wait... OH GOD IT'S GOT ME! ARRG---(hold music)

Re:Too bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42560615)

So roads and other infrastructure are all expertly maintained by the governments that own them?

Re:Too bad (4, Insightful)

Sique (173459) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560865)

Governments are the most miserable owners of infrastructure -- except all others. I don't know of any case of a public infrastructure going over to private owners and then improving with better services, more complete coverage and lower prices. Even privatizing telecommunication infrastructures in Europa was no privatization of a public infrastructure, it was just allowing private companies to compete either on the shared infrastructure still owned by a company whose majority owner in turn was the government, or with their own infrastructure they had to built themselves.

Re:Too bad (2)

iamgnat (1015755) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560939)

So roads and other infrastructure are all expertly maintained by the governments that own them?

No, but at least they are there and don't (directly) cost anything to use. VA on the other hand just opened the "hot" lanes on it's portion of 495 around DC and gave the ownership and all revenue from the tolls to a private company (yet we still get to pay for the state police and v-dot to monitor and maintain it). They say the cost of the toll is to be based on traffic, but they basically have a free license to charge almost anything they want (e.g. people will bear). They also did this by selling out the "greenway" portion of 267 and for the few miles between Leesburg and Dulles we've watched the tolls creep up to outrageous rates since there is only minimal control (and again it's the State that pays for the cops and maintenance while getting none of the revenue). They've also given away the rest of 267 (which was a serious cash cow for the state) to the Airport Authority which just jacked up the rates and will do so again next year. And this has apparently worked out so well according to the "Representatives" that got it done that they want to do more of it, yet they keep saying we don't have any transportation budget...

It's true that for the most part there are other reasonable options (mostly sitting in traffic with everyone else) to avoid the tolls, but if the people that pushed this so far have their way all the major roads are likely going to be turned into toll roads that are owned by private companies that get all the money. Thank you, but I'll live with undersized and over potholed roads that I'm already paying through the various taxes meant to pay for it (but McDonnell is trying to screw with that by removing the gas tax...).

Re:Too bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42561481)

No, but at least they are there and don't (directly) cost anything to use.

So you'd rather pay thousands of dollars a year in tax than a dollar or two when you actually the roads?

Oh, of course, I guess the reality is that your taxes won't go down when the roads are privatised, but the tolls will be added on top.

Re:Too bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42561565)

Did you a word? Sorry, Friday humor.

Re:Too bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42560429)

what freedom?

Re:Too bad (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42560533)

Typical Americanist standpoint. Incoherent, unqualified, unspecific complaint about "freedom" in the face of things that are ostensibly going to do quite well, or are already working well.

Oh no, people might not be charged exorbitant fees for terrible service by Comcast or, if they're lucky, another company as well. What an affront to Freedom (TM).

Quite the same as the Americanist approach to a national healthcare system.

Re:Too bad (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560733)

If you are talking about the Internet, then "freedom" is a very relevant thing to talk about. That vague concept is what allowed the Internet to develop in the first place. That vague concept also drives commercial activity and allows customers to find merchants.

There are very practical economic implications of protecting individual liberties.

That is why China itself is not exactly ideologically pure itself in these matters.

Re:Too bad (2)

maxwell demon (590494) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560961)

The question of freedom on the internet is completely different from the question of a free market building the infrastructure. You think that if the Chinese government would one day decide to give internet infrastructure into private hands, it would allow free usage of that net? The government would certainly still maintain its Great Firewall, it would still control what people do online, and it would probably mandate that every ISP, to get/keep a license, has to provide a way for the government to listen.

On the other hand, you can build a government-supported infrastructure and still give complete freedom of what people do on it, just like in the U.S. you can drive to whereever you want when using state-built roads (well, assuming there's a road going to that place, of course).

Advantages of Authoritarianism (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560335)

This is one of the advantages of authoritarianism. If you have a good idea, you don't need to waste your time on democratic debate and procedures. You just impose it by decree on 1.2 billion people. Nice.

There are some other things that all new homes should have: Sensors to turn off the lights where the room is empty, higher R insulation (most building codes require much less than actually makes sense), and brackets for solar panels so when the cost of solar panels falls to a reasonable level, the brackets are already there (if the brackets are retrofitted in later, that can more than double the cost).

Re:Advantages of Authoritarianism (2)

GPLHost-Thomas (1330431) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560479)

I wish this kind of authoritarianism was there to dictate IPv6 adoption in every country though.

Re:Advantages of Authoritarianism (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42560489)

If I were running China, I know exactly why I would want fiber in all houses, and it's not because it's "a good idea" for the people in the houses. It's because I was reading 1984 as a howto.

Re:Advantages of Authoritarianism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42560579)

Oh of course, there's such a difference between the amount of censorship that can be done on DSL et al., versus fibre.

Re:Advantages of Authoritarianism (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42560851)

I can see your sarcasm is very practiced, but you will always be an amateur because you use it to poor effect.

1984 wasn't just about censorship. It was also about information coming OUT of private spaces.

Re:Advantages of Authoritarianism (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560993)

Oh of course, there's such a difference between the amount of censorship that can be done on DSL et al., versus fibre.

Yes, there is. But the other way round: Since you can send less data over DSL, it's easier to censor it.

Re:Advantages of Authoritarianism (4, Informative)

spinkham (56603) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560543)

We have authoritarianism, it just gets its power from corporate lobbing and campaign donations instead.

NC started a few public fiber in some towns, so Time Warner lobbied and made broadband operating as any other public utility illegal [muninetworks.org] , ignoring the protests of many local tech businesses and even the FCC [arstechnica.com] .

Re:Advantages of Authoritarianism (1, Offtopic)

operagost (62405) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560859)

This is called crony capitalism. The response is to reduce government power and oversight so that it is not possible for it to exercise such control over the market. Of course, instead we do the opposite.

Re:Advantages of Authoritarianism (3, Insightful)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560985)

Sorry. Manipulation of the government is not capitalism.

Re:Advantages of Authoritarianism (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42561087)

I honestly can't see how people really think that would help.
So a power vacuum to be filled by exactly those who are the source of the problem would reduce crony capitalism?
As if nearly all corporate leaders and entrepreneurs being for a smaller government isn't indication enough...

Sure, reducing government increases personal freedom, and it might be beneficial for those wo think they would do better on their own (Wild West style) than the average, but crony capitalism is best fought by strengthening democracy, educating people and increasing participation. Enlarging/shrinking government actually doesn't affect the transparency issue much.

Re:Advantages of Authoritarianism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42561333)

No, that is *a* response, but certainly not the only one. An alternative would be to take the money out of politics: no more buying ads on tv for campaigns, no more lobbying with expensive gifts, no more campaign contributions over $X, no more taking jobs with the firms that lobbied for you, etc.. Remove and make illegal the mechanisms through which corporations bribe politicians, and now you have politicians whom are once again loyal to the people, not corporate lap dogs.

Or, we could reduce regulations and government oversight. After all, that worked out so well for the financial industry, right?

Re:Advantages of Authoritarianism (1)

Nkwe (604125) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560629)

This is one of the advantages of authoritarianism. If you have a good idea, you don't need to waste your time on democratic debate and procedures. You just impose it by decree on 1.2 billion people. Nice.

Another advantage with having one standardized information pipe to everyone's house is that is is much easier to standardize the monitoring and control as well.

New homes in China must have Fiber (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42560367)

April 1 2013 huh? APRIL FOOLS! HAR har, you built honorable home on site that is only DSL capable har har, Have a velly velly melly melly xmas and a happy new year! Fa RA ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra raaaaaaaaaaaa

Chinese Fiber homes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42560393)

April 1 2013 huh? APRIL FOOLS! HAR har, you built honorable home on site that is only DSL capable har har, Have a velly velly melly melly xmas and a happy new year! Fa RA ra ra ra ra ra ra ra ra raaaaaaaaaaaa!!!

Orwell (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42560395)

When the government minders deploy the mandatory, always-on home teleconference system they'll have plenty of bandwidth.

Re:Orwell (1)

Kadagan AU (638260) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560525)

This was the first thing that came to my mind as well. When the authoritarian government is requiring high speed internet access to every home, it can't just be for the public to have faster access to the censored internet. There has to be a bigger reason, and I'm sure it's more to do with upload speeds than download..

Yeah right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42560397)

And the side benefit is all packets are routed through their DPI servers, no?

Re:Yeah right (1)

Tridus (79566) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560547)

That happens if the house is using slow Internet as well, so it really doesn't change much.

This standard is actually a good one, on its own.

Makes sense (1)

Animats (122034) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560437)

Bear in mind that China is building lots of new apartment buildings. This says "wire them with optical fiber, not CAT-5". The cost isn't that different. It's probably cheaper to have a big pipe to a building rather than multiconductor phone cables.

meaningless (4, Insightful)

1u3hr (530656) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560441)

"ll newly built residences to install fiber optic connections in any city or county 'where a public fiber optic telecom network is available"

Duh. if the network IS AVAILABLE of course it will be installed. The cost is negligible if you do it with the other services.

This is just some bureaucrats trying to take credit for something that's already happening.

Building construction (3, Insightful)

DigiShaman (671371) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560467)

Just about all residential buildings are poured concrete. This includes the walls which carry the load. Most AC wiring is done externally. Fuck up an internal wiring run, and you might not be able to fish it out. This leaves installing external conduit as your only form of repair. The idea of running glass is a smart move as it doesn't suffer from corrosion, attenuation, and interference like twisted pair or coax would.

Re:Building construction (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560777)

That sounds like commercial construction.

So there should be nothing like romex or bare cat5 anywhere to be seen. It should all be run through conduits so that it can be maintained and repaired like any other building that falls under commercial construction codes.

So what they run during initial construction should be pretty irrelevant so long as there is proper conduit laid for communications.

Small number? (3, Interesting)

Mysticalfruit (533341) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560603)

Describe "small?" There's something like 20 million homes in the U.S. with a fibre internet connection. Not anything near the penetration of copper cable modems, but also nothing to ignore.

Ah, yes, China... (1)

boethius (14423) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560683)

... that bastion of open access to the Internet.

Very, very few Chinese even have homes that would warrant this. Look at the Australian documentary on China's "ghost cities" to see the sheer volume of unfilled condos that are vastly too expensive for about 99.9% of all Chinese to afford.

 

bandwidth (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42560697)

it's nice for low latency to mainland hosts, but the bandwidth available to private customers is nothing special. ( ~250kB/s downstream in shanghai)

Math? (2)

leplen (2469676) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560713)

The article claims 'the Chinese government hopes to have “40 million families connected to fiber networks by 2015,” which is almost one-third of the country’s entire population.'

Since when is 40 million families 1/3 of 1.3 billion people? How big are these families? Either there should be another zero and it should be 400 million people, or this 1/3 claim is bogus.

40 million families represents ~10% of China's population, no where near 1/3.

Re:Math? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42560839)

Oh math, my dear friend, is quite hard. 40/1300 is about 3%.

Re:Math? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42561313)

Help me remember, wasn't there some very strict "1 ... per ..." policy in China some time ago? Ah, must've been "1 person per family", otherwise your 40 by 1300 division makes no sense.

Re:Math? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42561437)

Yes, my friend, math is quite hard. 40 (families) / 1300 (individuals) = wait, what?

Assuming each family is composed of approximately 3 people, you get (40 * 3) / 1300 = 0.092307 = 9.2%.

Re:Math? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42561489)

Wow that is sad...
When if you assume each family has 5 people people in it...
40/260 = 15%
but assume each family in China has 11 people in it.
40/119 = 33%
That seems reasonable right?
grandma/dad -2
parents -2
3 married kids -6
1 unmarried kid -1

Totally reasonable! see!

Communism sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42560727)

until you use internet

This is what government is for (1)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560757)

I wish that they would do this sort of thing here but I just know that what would happen is that the government would cave into lobbyists that would then set up the regulations that didn't boil down to houses needing to have a fiber hook up but to pay the telcos to have fiber. Then the telcos could call it "building infrastructure" instead of "lining pockets".

But instead of creating the conditions for all people/companies to thrive the government they will keep trying to pick winners. In my area the government recently gave hundreds of millions to two failing pulp mills. The very word mill evokes images of 1920. "I goin' to quit school and work at da mill like me grandpappy."

ftfy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42560807)

All New Homes In China Must Have Fiber Optic Telescreen Connections

Keeping up with the Jones' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42560813)

This is already common in the more cosmo major cities in China. Something that is getting left out of this: It's actually Fiber-to-the-building. Not Fiber-to-your-apartment. The fiber only goes to the building. Meaning, you'll be sharing it with the other 100s, 1000s of people in the building. In which case, they are doing this out of necessity rather than luxury. Nothing new here. It's an article meant to appease the "OMG WE'RE FALLING BEHIND THE WORLD" crowd.

Do the chinese authorities do april fools jokes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42560933)

"The new standards will take effect starting on April 1, 2013, and residents will be able to choose their own ISP with equal connections to services."

I thought april fools was mainly a western thing.

They need a lot of bandwidth (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42560947)

in order to be able to run those two way video screens that watch your reaction to the Two Minutes of Hate broadcasts.

China Unicorn? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42561009)

I can't read Unicom... I always read Unicorn.

I thought it was Huawei routers.... (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about a year and a half ago | (#42561103)

I thought the new rule is every new home must have a single point of connection to the internet via a Huawei router, with firmware version more recent than 8.2.2012.build 1346- known in the industry as the Beiging T Tap version.

Been there, done that. (2)

thyristor pt (1507463) | about a year and a half ago | (#42561213)

In Portugal it's mandatory since 2009 to equip new buildings with fiber optic cabling from the front door to each apartment, two fibers for every client, and a telecom cabinet housing equipment ready to be connected to the service provider.

Puppets On Strings? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42561223)

So they'll have fiber but won't be allowed to access the Internet. And every keystroke will be watched and analyzed.

The lesson is...? (3, Informative)

argStyopa (232550) | about a year and a half ago | (#42561257)

If the point is to point out that a fascist totalitarian state can implement broad policies more efficiently, then that's not news; the Romans understood that since 249BC when they appointed Aulus Atilius Calatinus as dictator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_dictator [wikipedia.org]

But even the Romans understood that there were likely some unpleasant consequences to be found living in a totalitarian state. But hey, they probably had the best internet access times of anyone in the ancient world, right?

mod 0p (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42561513)

Today. It's 4bout I'll have offended

Very fast censored/monitored internet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42561585)

What's the point of that then?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>