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!

How Much Does a New Internet Cost?

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 6 years ago | from the someone-call-al-gore dept.

Networking 446

wschalle writes "Given the recent flurry of articles concerning ISP over subscription, increasing bandwidth needs, and lack of infrastructure spending on the part of cable companies, I'm forced to wonder, what is the solution? How much would a properly upgraded internet backbone cost? How long would it take to make it happen? Will the cable companies step up before Verizon's FiOS becomes the face of broadband in America?"

cancel ×

446 comments

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

How much? (5, Insightful)

tftp (111690) | more than 6 years ago | (#20288715)

How much would a properly upgraded internet backbone cost?

It will always cost as much as you are willing to pay, and the upgrade does not matter here at all.

Yet again, another STUPID ask slashdot. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20288757)

But hey, stupid "ask slashdot" questions are intended as flamebait and therefore will generate many angry responses. Way to go!
 
And watch this post quickly become modded -1, Flamebait by the clueless.

Mod parent up!! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20288797)

I agree

Re:Mod parent up!! (3, Insightful)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 6 years ago | (#20289071)

The answer is to create wireless mesh devices and take centralized control out of the equation entirely.

You'd still need a backbone to cross long uninhabited expanses, but that's all.

Hey douchebag... Mod immediate parent down (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20289095)

Just calling this one out. He has nothing to do with the GP or OP and is trying to gain karma by making a reply that has NO CORRELATION to what he is replying to.

Nice try at karma prostitution.

Re:Mod parent up!! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20289139)

Sure, that works in Neil Stephenson books, but in practice, the latency would be so high as to be worthless for most time critical applications.

Re:Mod parent up!! (1)

vranash (594439) | more than 6 years ago | (#20289251)

How many time critical applications do any of us really use though?

I personally don't use VOIP or Webcams or play FPSes, so all the big things that'd make latency an issue aren't important for me.

Knowing that I'm in control of the internet and not just the cash hungry telcos would go pretty far in my book for most of what I do use it for (text based applications, web apps, email, and IM, none of which will see you fragged if you happen to spend 5-10 seconds waiting for your message to get through.

Mind you I'm not one of the myspace whoring masses.

That's ALL???? (2, Interesting)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 6 years ago | (#20289275)

You'd still need a backbone to cross long uninhabited expanses, but that's all.

That, my friend is EVERYTHING. Try wandering out of [insert large city name] sometime. Distributed wireless mesh coast to coast is a total fantasy.

MODERATORS! Mod Shieldw0lf DOWN! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20289281)

This is a KARMA TROLL. Reply has NOTHING to do with parent post.

How much does it cost not to... (3, Insightful)

simpl3x (238301) | more than 6 years ago | (#20288827)

Perhaps the question should be re-framed. As an iPhone owner, the most damaging aspect of the product is the AT&T service. Edge blows on this thing. As a consumer in Chicago, city-wide wireless would be an incredible benefit to business. But, our shortsightedness, or the effective lobbying by various groups, makes us focus on their business rather than ours. I am also a small business person.

Whatever it is that we are being sold, it is ineffective at best and long-term incredibly damaging to education, business, and culture. In the states, we like to argue about the "issues" which is in effect lobbying, rather than the discuss the desired results. What kind of economy do we want? And, what do we need to achieve it?

Whether the computer is useful in education, whether the businesses we should focus on are large or small, or whether it costs too much are side issues at best. Our infrastructure and our priorities are unfortunately showing all to well lately.

Re:How much does it cost not to... (4, Insightful)

Bluesman (104513) | more than 6 years ago | (#20288895)

"What kind of economy do we want? And, what do we need to achieve it?"

Free market. End government supported monopolies to the extent possible.

I don't see why a private company doesn't set up a city-wide 802.11 wireless network. Businesses and private owners would be likely to let the company use the very small space required for the equipment, since customers would find wireless access attractive. Vending machines operate on this kind of principle, and there is no shortage of those.

It's nice to think that government could take care of the infrastructure instead, but do you trust the same people who can't fix potholes in asphalt with managing and maintaining a wireless LAN?

I don't, especially since after the network is installed, there's no political gain for maintaining it. It's the same reason great sysadmins whose systems never fail are typically seen as unnecessary.

Re:How much does it cost not to... (4, Informative)

tftp (111690) | more than 6 years ago | (#20288953)

I don't see why a private company doesn't set up a city-wide 802.11 wireless network.

MetroFi [metrofi.com] , actually, did just that - and I live within their coverage.

The MetroFi's signal is decent, but they require a login before you can access any IPs beyond the registration server, so if you have equipment that assumes connectivity (like an IP phone, or even a PS3) then it does not work (since there may be no browser to do the login first.)

Re:How much? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20288859)

I never realized how pathetic American Internet services were until I visited South Korea. It's like night and day. While we're paying out our asses for lousy service often not topping 256 kbps, on the low end they've got 20 Mbps fibre connections to individual apartments! My friend there had a 60 Mbps connection in his apartment, and each month he was paying (after currency conversion) just over 2/3 of what I was for my 128 kbps cable connection!

And he doesn't worry about caps or any of that bullshit. He transferred some Linux ISOs to a friend who lived across the city, and he was actually maxing out his 60 Mbps connection. It probably helped that his friend had an 80 Mbps connection, although he paid a fair bit more for it.

Now, I know there will be people who say I'm full of shit. I would have thought so, too, until seeing it with my own eyes. Coming back to the American Internet experience, I felt like I'd stepped back decades. I often wonder how great our Internet infrastructure would be had the money spent on the Iraq War debacle instead been put to better domestic use. Maybe we'd be comparable to a nation like South Korea.

Thankfully, I've since moved to Canada, where we get excellent service at a very reasonable price.

Re:How much? (3, Informative)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 6 years ago | (#20288989)

I know what you mean. I use ADSL here, and get about 1200KBPS download or so. I've house-sat for a friend a few times who's on cable, and I was appalled by the poor service he gets: about a third of what I get at home. Now, I'm not saying all cable is like that; I know better, and he's just stuck on a busy segment. I can imagine that coming here from Korea is to you like hooking up at my friend's is for me, if not worse.

Re:How much? (4, Interesting)

sedmonds (94908) | more than 6 years ago | (#20289067)

Thankfully, I've since moved to Canada, where we get excellent service at a very reasonable price.


You must live in a different part of Canada than I do. I am fortunate enough to have a choice between cable and dsl.

Rogers throttles the shit out of the connection, imposes monthly bandwidth caps, and won't sell me service with a static address or the ability to run "servers". Gibbled service from Rogers costs about the same as cable in the US.

Bell has monthly bandwidth caps, and I get frequent disconnects and piss poor sync rates because even though I'm in a residential area of a half million person area (Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge) that they say will get 3-5Mbps I'm 6.2km wire distance from the CO that's 3km away. It took 3 months for them to figure out that my connection blows because of the wire distance. Bell will give me an unstable piece of shit line with static address and ability to run servers for $99/month. Other DSL providers use the same copper, and so provide an unstable piece of shit line, for around $30/month.

Excellent service at very reasonable prices? Not here.

Re:How much? (5, Insightful)

sqrt(2) (786011) | more than 6 years ago | (#20289177)

Compared to S. Korea, the continental USA is a big motherfucker. You have to think about that too. You think the distance from one end of Seoul to other is long way? Imagine maintaining those speeds between LA and NY. For a couple hundred million more people too. Internet access doesn't scale so nicely. The USA is a country where you can literally start driving in one direction and go for days, or at least hours without even crossing a state border, and we've got FIFTY of those. If we took all the money we spend on infrastructure and packed it all into one of the smaller states, yeah we'd all have speeds so fast that your HDD becomes the bottle neck. But we have to spread our resources out over VAST distances because you might want to access things more than a few hundred miles away.

Re:How much? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 6 years ago | (#20289271)

From what I've heard from people in South Korea (and if there are any here, please feel free to correct anything I'm repeating), it sounds like the grandparent was in Seoul. Once you go elsewhere, the standard of Internet connection available drops considerably. That said, there's not really any excuse for somewhere like New York City, for example, not having the same standard of Internet connectivity as Seoul.

Dark Fiber (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20288719)

If there's as much dark fiber around as people say there is, then it could just be a matter of buying it and activating it. How much would this cost? I don't know!

Which I presume is far cheaper than digging up the whole country to lay new fibre.

Re:Dark Fiber (1)

MollyB (162595) | more than 6 years ago | (#20288755)

But what about "conspiracy in restraint of trade" being engaged by the owners of the dark fiber who happens to sit on the board at the telcos?
It might resemble deBeers controlling the amount of diamond allowed to be sold in order to keep margins high... Just a thought.

Re:Dark Fiber (4, Informative)

Isomer (48061) | more than 6 years ago | (#20288789)

The problem with dark fiber is that it never goes where you want it to. Sure theres heaps of it around in various areas of CBD's (but not past the building you care about), or long distances between cities, but it'll probably coz you a whole heap of money to actually get it from where the fiber is to where you need it to be.

And then you have to assume that the dark fiber has actually been maintained sufficiently that it's worth using. Dark fiber often is left in the ground and ignored and when you go to use it you discover it doesn't work anymore.

IPv4 is fine. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20288725)

I don't see why we need to change to IPv6. IPv4 is like Madonna: Nothing is better.
Why upgrade to IPv6 and have the cost passed on to the government?
Anonymous Coward Sig 2.0:
--
Madonna is the only artist with any talent!

About 49.95 a month, if I install it myself (5, Funny)

Saint Stephen (19450) | more than 6 years ago | (#20288731)

Whenever I move somewhere the first thing I do is call and get a new internet. It used to take about 6 weeks but now it only takes a couple of days. I'm living out here by the lake now so my internet got installed by some redneck but he did an okay job, my internet is fast enough.

Where's the bottleneck? (5, Interesting)

Short Circuit (52384) | more than 6 years ago | (#20288737)

Where's the bottleneck? In the fiber link between Chicago and New York? Or in the connection between Comcast's IT offices and their customer loops? Or is it in the customer loops themselves?

I've heard countless stories about how the Internet was going to be choked, but it's been a long time since I've heard widespread complaints about over-subscription on a particular cable loop. And I haven't heard anything specific about data not getting from Chicago to San Diego fast enough, or from New York to Europe.

Instead, all I've heard are complaints by ISPs and industry bloggers saying that ISPs can't push all the data they're being paid to. I haven't seen any real evidence in a while. (But then, most of my tech news comes from Slashdot...)

Re:Where's the bottleneck? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20288745)

Yeah, I think this is another article to file under "ohnoeskittystoledmymegahurtz".
Tag appropriately.

Where's the Slashdot effect? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20288891)

"Where's the bottleneck? "

At the server.

Re:Where's the bottleneck? (4, Informative)

drmerope (771119) | more than 6 years ago | (#20288955)

Yes, considering the insane amount of dark-fiber between major cities and business districts, I'd guess that the problem is not there. Obviously it takes money to light that fiber. I have to say that technology is being driven very fast right--and its being driven by the likes of Google.

Google is pushing vendors for very fast, high density interconnect. 10Gbps from the server to the mesh. An IEEE study group just green lighted work on a 100Gbps ethernet standard. The target market for this is in metropolitan networks.

An OC-192 fiber connection is worth a mere 622.080 Mbps. Layer-3 switches can operate at roughly 240Gbps.

The noise is all about the business model not about the fundamentals. The backbone providers are becoming something of a commodity service. This would be okay if the tax structure let them provide their service + pay dividends. Instead every company has to be a 'growth company'. Ergo, they have a problem. There is no revenue growth future in what they are doing--unless they can dig their teeth into a new revenue stream--e.g., by raising the rents of content providers.

Re:Where's the bottleneck? (4, Informative)

doon (23278) | more than 6 years ago | (#20289015)

Err oc192 = 622mbps? Explain to me how I get 2.5gbps out of an OC-48 then :) I think you meant an OC-12. which would be 622mbps.

OC-192 is approx 10gb/s.

We are moving to GIG-E 10Gig- connections for backbones now, as Ethernet interfaces are way cheaper than POS (Packet of Sonet) ones.

Re:Where's the bottleneck? (1)

drmerope (771119) | more than 6 years ago | (#20289151)

Yes. Nasty slip on my part.

Re:Where's the bottleneck? (1)

wschalle (790478) | more than 6 years ago | (#20289087)

There is no revenue growth future in what they are doing--unless they can dig their teeth into a new revenue stream--e.g., by raising the rents of content providers.
There will always be a demand for more and more bandwidth though, right?

Re:Where's the bottleneck? (1)

drmerope (771119) | more than 6 years ago | (#20289191)

There will always be a demand for more and more bandwidth though, right?
But at what price? The trend I see is more bandwidth for the same price.

Re:Where's the bottleneck? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20289047)

The bottleneck is in the topology of the coaxial network. You can only put so much bandwidth on a single coaxial segment, and that segment is shared between multiple users competing for bandwidth.

Comcast has to split the network even more or lay fiber if they want to compete with FIOS.

Re:Where's the bottleneck? (1)

ZERO1ZERO (948669) | more than 6 years ago | (#20289171)

I haven't seen any real evidence in a while. (But then, most of my tech news comes from Slashdot...)
That's great, I'll need to use that sometime.

What's in it for the providers? (4, Insightful)

exploder (196936) | more than 6 years ago | (#20288743)

As long as they can get away with offering sub-par connectivity at premium prices, what incentive do they have to rock the boat? The only thing that can induce these telcos to make costly infrastructure upgrades is competition, which is in pretty short supply currently.

Re:What's in it for the providers? (5, Insightful)

value_added (719364) | more than 6 years ago | (#20288817)

The only thing that can induce these telcos to make costly infrastructure upgrades is competition, which is in pretty short supply currently.

Well, maybe the government can step in and develop a public/private partnership, and then offer them tax breaks to offset the costs of infrastructure upgrades. IIRC, similar models are in place for the military, the oil industry, and big pharma.

Oh, wait ...

Re:What's in it for the providers? (1)

DrTime (838124) | more than 6 years ago | (#20288913)

I don't see any problems with connectivity. The problem with COMCAST is pricing and customer service. COMCAST controls too much programming, charges too much, and their customer service is lacking. I've had no problems with broadband, don't trust them for telephone, and find their TV support is poor. Just try and use QAM without a STB. The service technicians I have dealt with at my home were fine.

The question is how different Verizon will be once they have you on contract. I expect to have the option of going FIOS by the end of the year. I keep my expectations low so I won't be disappointed when they come.

Will I switch, price may drive the change.

What's in it for the spoiled brats? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20288977)

"As long as they can get away with offering sub-par connectivity at premium prices"

Oh cry me a river. I'm on dial-up. Your "sub-par" connection would be like manna from heaven. Kids these days don't know how to appreciate what they do have.

"The only thing that can induce these telcos to make costly infrastructure upgrades is competition, which is in pretty short supply currently."

All the competition in the world isn't going to change the financial question. Who's going to pay for it?

Re:What's in it for the spoiled brats? (3, Interesting)

exploder (196936) | more than 6 years ago | (#20289135)

All the competition in the world isn't going to change the financial question. Who's going to pay for it?

The telcos will, individually, if they find that without doing so they'll be at a competitive disadvantage. Under any other scenario, not a chance.

Re:What's in it for the spoiled brats? (-1, Flamebait)

Maniac-X (825402) | more than 6 years ago | (#20289261)

Oh cry me a river. I'm on dial-up.
Get a job. Problem solved.

Don't clog the tubes! (0, Troll)

Rinisari (521266) | more than 6 years ago | (#20288747)

Well, we gotta figure the cost of laying down the new tubing, maybe even cutting some bigger holes in our houses. I figure if we expand the tubes from the current quarter inch to oh, four inches or so, we won't clog them with all our crap.

Re:Don't clog the tubes! (2, Insightful)

Compholio (770966) | more than 6 years ago | (#20288783)

I figure if we expand the tubes from the current quarter inch to oh, four inches or so, we won't clog them with all our crap.
You forgot the #1 rule of the Internet: crap size increases to fit the available tube.

Re:Don't clog the tubes! (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 6 years ago | (#20288835)

Actually rule #1 is... never mind.

Anyway it's everyone ELSE's crap that clogs the tubes.

Don't clog the tubes!-Eat light. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20289215)

"You forgot the #1 rule of the Internet: crap size increases to fit the available tube."

Have you considered dropping the Styrofoam peanuts from your diet?

Re:Don't clog the tubes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20288961)

Well, we gotta figure the cost of laying down the new tubing, maybe even cutting some bigger holes in our houses. I figure if we expand the tubes from the current quarter inch to oh, four inches or so, we won't clog them with all our crap.
Well, dear Mac user, your tubes wouldn't get clogged with crap if you stopped having a penis compacting it up in there all the time. Things go out of buttholes, not in.

Tell you what... (2, Interesting)

gozu (541069) | more than 6 years ago | (#20288749)

It'll cost a hell of a lot less than the war on Iraq.

If that much money had been spent on internet infrastructure, we'd probably have 99% wireless penetration and 10Gbps fiber to the home for $30/month.

Yeah, the cost of that war is *that* ridiculous.

Re:Tell you what... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20288761)

Yes, but then the poor bastards in Iraq would be without FREEDOM!

Re:Tell you what... (1)

llamalad (12917) | more than 6 years ago | (#20289263)

But they'd have clean laundry.

Re:Tell you what... (5, Insightful)

jombeewoof (1107009) | more than 6 years ago | (#20288779)

If the money was not being spent on the war it will have been spent on something else, certainly not the internet backbone.

Re:Tell you what... (5, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 6 years ago | (#20289155)

So in other words, spending money on something stupid is ok because it would have been used on something stupid anyway? I realize trying to stop the government to spend money on useless think is an enormous game of whack-a-mole, but even I usually don't get that depressive.

Re:Tell you what... (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 6 years ago | (#20289201)

If the money was not being spent on the war it will have been spent on something else
Maybe, but then Bush would have had to declare it in his budget (during a period in which he was claiming to balance things) which would have blown up all the rosy forecasts.

Emergency Military spending has been the name of the game for Iraq and Afghanistan military spending.

Emergency money is not part of the 'normal' budget.

Re:Tell you what... (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 6 years ago | (#20288787)

Congratulations! You've managed to bring the war in Iraq into a discussion about the cost of internet infrastructure.

Re:Tell you what... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20288821)

Congratulations for being able to point out the obvious.

Re:Tell you what... (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 6 years ago | (#20288929)

Might want to read up on sarcasm [wikipedia.org] there, Chucky.

Re:Tell you what... (1)

mrbcs (737902) | more than 6 years ago | (#20289131)

You just forgot to close the tag. /sarcasm

Re:Tell you what... (1)

Kiaser Wilhelm II (902309) | more than 6 years ago | (#20289063)

I think talking about the cost of an irrelevant war is very germane in regards to discussion of the costs of and unwillingness to fund improving our quality of life at home.

Re:Tell you what... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20288805)

Are you going to deny Dick Cheney's ex-company all these profits? How do you have the heart to even think about it?!?!

Genius (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20288831)

And we can entertain the 150 000+ troops who would be twiddling their thumbs with ultra fast porn!

Re:Tell you what... (1)

rob1980 (941751) | more than 6 years ago | (#20288863)

You actually believe that's where the money would have gone? oy vey!

Re:Tell you what... (5, Funny)

starkravingmad (882833) | more than 6 years ago | (#20288943)

As my economics professor used to say, we could have dropped washing machines on Vietnam and achieved the same result, and probably killed fewer people.

Re:Tell you what... (1, Insightful)

tompaulco (629533) | more than 6 years ago | (#20289025)

If that much money had been spent on internet infrastructure, we'd probably have 99% wireless penetration and 10Gbps fiber to the home for $30/month.
You really think $1,000 per capita could do that? Heck, the contractor would charge that much just to bury the last 50 feet to your house.

Tell you what...Misdirection. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20289049)

One the war in Iraq is a government expense. The internet is mostly private and academic.

Two I know at least one group [theotheriraq.com] that's glad for the war.

And another... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20289219)

group [northropgrumman.com] that's glad for the war.

Re:Tell you what... (2, Insightful)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 6 years ago | (#20289277)

To us it's the "cost of war". To the profiteers and pirates, it's the business of war. A very profitable business. Much more profitable than selling internet services.

Re:Tell you what... (1)

band-aid-brand (1068196) | more than 6 years ago | (#20289283)

I hope to god the first thing that went through your head when you heard about the 9/11 attacks wasn't "Lets build faster internets!!!". Please keep your troll-posts contained to the politically oriented articles.

Theoritically (3, Interesting)

JamesRose (1062530) | more than 6 years ago | (#20288767)

All you need to know is the cost of the fastest connection material per metre, the cost of decoding stations, the cost of laying cable per metre, cost of building decoding stations. Then all that would be need is to take the area you want to rebuild, map out where you want to cover, and it would be prettysimple assuming you just use a simple back bone spidering out to smaller and smaller areas untill it goes to each individual home. Unfortunately, this would only work on smallish scales, because while you could with a bit of work figure out how to rebuild a state, or maybe at a push a small country, in reality you'd be talking about possibly continents rewired. Plus of course you want to be future proof, so would you want to put breaks into the backbone connections, it would cause lsightly more latency, but if you don't, and you need to add a connection onto the backbone, that could severely damage backbone structures for several hours and slow connectivity by huge amounts during the time.

Then of course do you want backups- do you want to protect california for example, against earthquakes, possibly by wireless, or by several backbones running perpendicular to each other.

Re:Theoritically (1)

WiglyWorm (1139035) | more than 6 years ago | (#20289031)

You're really not clear on how the internet works, are you?

The neat thing about the internet is when one line of communication goes down, data actually finds another way around automatically. This nonsense about running "perpendicular backbones"... they already exist. So, if we're talking about simply upgrading the infrastructure, then why are we suddenly talking about adding multiple lines next to each other. o.O

Theoritically Reality. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20289107)

"The neat thing about the internet is when one line of communication goes down, data actually finds another way around automatically."

Actually I'd say you weren't. Oh I'm not talking about the textbook definition, but the actual reality when you get out of your basement and visit the locations that are "The internet". It's not as redundant as a slashdot dupe and there have been examples when it has gone down faster than a cheap hooker.

Re:Theoritically Reality. (1)

WiglyWorm (1139035) | more than 6 years ago | (#20289223)

I think you'd be hard pressed to cite for me one example of "the internet going down". Sure, there's been instances of portions of the internet backbone going down, and in some of those instances, there's been cases of the internet grinding to a slow crawl as tons of traffic gets rerouted, but if you're patient, you'll get where you're trying to be. Besides, knowing human nature, the second you lay down two backbones -one as a backup- you'll pretty much instantly get people using it as a primary line.

Re:Theoritically (1)

Runefox (905204) | more than 6 years ago | (#20289211)

Well, if you live on an island like I do, you're looking at parallel backbones or one big single point of failure.

Re:Theoritically (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20289051)

Theoritically?

Let me giss ... you're an Austrylian! ;-)

Ask my staff (3, Funny)

Baumi (148744) | more than 6 years ago | (#20288785)

An internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Unfortunately, they didn't tell me how much they paid.

Re:Ask my staff (2, Funny)

plover (150551) | more than 6 years ago | (#20289185)

According to Google products [google.com] , really cheap tubes are about $0.10 per foot. Of course, those can get all tangled up with your own personal internets. It's not something you just dump something on. It's not a big truck.

not as much as aids (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20288803)

it would cost less then treating aids with all the linux fags out there spreading their faggot disease.

Right answers != good answers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20288807)

5) More than $2
4) $78,432,011 Vlifenscarde, I'll let you do the math
3) Less than a dozen pirated mp3s (as valued by the RIAA)
2) More than the corporations are going to pay.
1) Years of grief, shady accounting, questionable ethics and finally government intervention... after the situation has become inconvenient to the lowest denominator.

Infrastructure (2, Insightful)

Hemlock Stones (636570) | more than 6 years ago | (#20288865)

Hey, I'm still waiting (been over SEVEN YEARS now) for AT&T to deliver DSL to my home. I've been using Comcast/Time Warner (expensive but relatively high bandwidth) for the last five. Cable companies have already spent billions to upgrade their infrastructure, only now are they running out of bandwidth. AT&T spent billions on acquisitions and millions on lobbiests to lock in their monopoly on the final mile. And I'm still waiting.

Internet Paranoia! This is a setup! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20288899)

Somebody is causing all of this panic about internet problems! All these articles rehashing scary thoughts like:

The Bandwidth is becoming unsufficient! We're going to run out any week now! The torrentors are killing it! The Youtubers are killing it! The ISP's are throttling our bottlenecks! Too much downloading! Spam is clogging up the NIC's, Viruses, Trojans, Malware, birds, squirrels, monkeys, sharks, and other animal organizations are fowling up the lines!

This stuff needs to be stopped. These articles are becoming annoying. My internet connection is going great. I had dial-up for years and have finally swtched to cable. It's so much better. I am really not inconvenienced. If the internet is really going to choke then the ISP's are going to fix it. Sure, they'll make us pay but it'll be done. Besides, they wouldn't want to lose all that money they make each month on us. It's just too lucrative!

Interesting question (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20288925)

To bring some outside perspective, in France we had a huge problem due to the monopoly and then quasi monopoly of the original state operator. Prices were pretty high and nothing seemed to move. We had a really great phone system thanks to the state-operated France Telecom and the amount of cash the state spent building it, but prices and choices were not that great.

At some point arrived an operator named Free. They offered a no-contract, local call (no more expensive than calling your neighboor) RTC service that was a huge success (along with e-mail and web-site hosting).
When came the time of moving to DSL (able never was a real success in France), again the prices were high and the choice scarce. Free deployed its own equipments and offered a low-cost 512 Kb Downstream ADSL access (30 EUR a month, about $40, when others were more easily around 60 EUR).
That proved to be a nice example of how competition pushes the market in good directions for the most parts).
Ever since, Free upgraded their access to 1 Mb, then 8 Mb. Today 25 Mb is available if you are lucky enough to be in the right zones (and to leave almost in the DSLAM, since DSL is distance dependant), with free national telephony (and free calls to a bunch of other countries like the US, landline or mobiles) as well as TV. All of that for the exact same amount of 30 EUR a month.

Let it be said, they might have invested a bunch in laying down the equipment. But they made it big, and customers saw right away where they should go.
Granted, there are issues with Free (poor hotline support, poor coverage for rural zones, accusations of violating GPL license in their terminal which seem to be true...), but they did bring the market to where it is today in France. At this point, Free is busy trying to bring fiber optic into buildings (no word yet on the price or speed for this future service).

No, laying down equipment and upgrading it to support faster delivery speed does not seem to require a "price upgrade" if the business model involves selling what customers are ready to purchase. Investment is not about hitting the customer, it's about planning what return you expect of it.

Slashdot: Telecom clue-- (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20288983)

To put questions like the Ask Slashdot asker into the perspective of a typical slashdotter: How much would it cost to replace all legacy code with something new?

Telecom started the first day any sort of communication took place, and we've been building on that ever since. There's no choice but to continue working with what we have and hope something better organically comes out the other end.

New Internets (1)

BlueCollarCamel (884092) | more than 6 years ago | (#20288987)

I recently replaced my old phone-line internet with DSL internet. Cost me less, bitches!

:P

One simple solution (5, Funny)

SECProto (790283) | more than 6 years ago | (#20289019)

Probably the cheapest solution is to kill a couple billion people. that will reduce demand for a fair bit of time.

Re:One simple solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20289083)

Exactly, now why don't you lead the way. Here is how you can do it.

  • Go find a cliff or a bridge somewhere
  • Take your entire fucktarded family
  • Have all of them jump off to their deaths
  • Jump to your death


Then there would be a vast start right there and we won't have to put up with fucktards like you again.

Re:One simple solution (5, Funny)

jon287 (977520) | more than 6 years ago | (#20289123)

Ha! Then the phone company would just claim that there aren't enough subscribers in your area to make a broadband deployment feasible, then ask you if you'd like to be put on a waiting list to be notified if it ever becomes available in your area!

(Hint: There is no list, they just put your name on a giant board at the telco along with all of the other suckers on dail-up so everyone can have a good laugh.)

Not much when you get wages like this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20289027)

Senior Server Technical Analyst
http://jobsearch.monsterscotland.co.uk/getjob.asp? JobID=61015523 [monsterscotland.co.uk]
You could have your own pipe.

Please don't slashdot the site.

Ohh, go on then, if they can afford to pay wages like this, then they must have lots of bandwidth.

Forget Infrastructure! Broadband Over Powerlines! (2, Funny)

morari (1080535) | more than 6 years ago | (#20289033)

Now if only those ham radio operators would shut up and sign off!

In america... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20289037)

Bandwidth is "running out" in the U.S, not everywhere .. Why? Because its a third world country run by big companies.

You are losing more and more of your civil rights each year that passes with Bush as president.

Your prison system is overflowing, and there just keeps coming more and more people ready to fill it up.

You have more than twice the murder rate of other developed countries.

From wikipedia "The United States has the highest incarceration rate and total prison populationin the world and by far the highest figures among democratic, developed nations"

Your health care system is failing.

Your education system is failing.

Your telecom companies and other internet providers and the services they provide are a joke.

The list goes on and on, didnt even mention the war... Its time for you guys to wake up and do something about your government, your legal system, etc, etc.

But then again, I might just be trolling.

There isn't just one Internet backbone. (4, Insightful)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 6 years ago | (#20289055)

This Ask Slashdot question makes the false assumption that there is one, and only one Internet backbone, and that the only way to upgrade is to replace it. As Foldoc [foldoc.org] shows, the so-called backbone is composed of a number of large-scale networks that interconnect. If you need more bandwidth, all that's needed is to add as much as you need and can afford.

That depends (5, Interesting)

jon287 (977520) | more than 6 years ago | (#20289079)

on how much a session of congress costs. Keep in mind you'll be bidding against ma bell.

They're getting a pretty sweet deal right now so a few hundred million in lobbyists, campaign contributions and other misc bribes is nothing. [muniwireless.com]

The cost of the actual wires vanishes when compared to the munny-munny-munny nonsense of the political side.

the last mile (1)

dalesyk (302267) | more than 6 years ago | (#20289089)

One solution may be to take back control of the last mile. Build (or rebuilt) subdivisions with ftth. Pay for and maintain this with subdivision dues. Allow data/voice/media providers to connect to the neighborhood fiber non exclusively. Now providers compete for the same access to consumers and prices drop while speed goes up.

Re:the last mile (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20289157)

dalesyk wrote:

One solution may be to take back control of the last mile. Build (or rebuilt) subdivisions with ftth. Pay for and maintain this with subdivision dues. Allow data/voice/media providers to connect to the neighborhood fiber non exclusively. Now providers compete for the same access to consumers and prices drop while speed goes up.
This is an excellent idea! We look forward to implementing it, just after the next election. By the way, are you a $MY_PARTY supporter? We're in need of some donations. $MONOPOLY has already donated several hundred million dollars. No, this is completely unrelated. I like your idea so much, I just thought we might bring you on board as well with $MY_PARTY, as we seem to have mutual interests.

-Your $POLITICIAN.

Don't they give them out for free? (1)

Megane (129182) | more than 6 years ago | (#20289109)

Because people keep telling me that I've "won an internet" all the time.

So what happened to the "Dark Side"? (1)

ibm1130 (123012) | more than 6 years ago | (#20289115)

I seem to recall that not too long ago the concern was all that dark fibre
lying around doing nothing. T'would seem the concern was a tad misplaced.

Silly me, I forgot t'internet == USA (-1, Flamebait)

sparkz (146432) | more than 6 years ago | (#20289143)

"A new internet"?

I'll set one up for $100, if you like. I'll do a 192.168.1.0/24 network, with a 192.168.2.0/24 network. It'll cost you, of course; after all it is an entire inter-network. And then there's the hardware; you'll need a router between the two, and then the cabling.

Oh sorry, were you just some USAian cheapskate moaning about the cost of broadband access?

It's been overdone, it's true, but it's still worth mentioning; THERE ARE PEOPLE WITHOUT FOOD AND WATER

There's hardly a need to set up a new internet just because you don't like what Verizon charge you for broadband.

Are you aware of the cost of laying intercontinental cables? Oh sorry, you're USAian, I'll have to backtrack... There are continents. America is one of them. The USA is part of that continent. You are part of the USA. The USA is a Country. Most (all?) Continents consist of many Countries. This all fits into a sphere we often call "Earth". We are a species known as Homo Sapiens, who inhabit this planet. Pretty much all of it, as it happens. And we're f*cking it up. Badly.

Yet the biggest thing you can find about the Internet, is that it costs you $2 more per month than you would like.

Actually, that's good for me. Save your "new internet" costs, by simply disconnecting yourself from the existing (so-called) "internet". You'll save a load of money, and the huge intercontinental distance means that I will never need to hear any of your whines again.

It seems that we have a plan; what do you think?

Re:Silly me, I forgot t'internet == USA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20289235)

hey retard.

read the whole summary.

"...in America" it says. Thus, he's talking about the internet backbone in America.

Jackass.

Re:Silly me, I forgot t'internet == USA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20289257)

Australia = Continent = 1 Country, jfyi.

Re:Silly me, I forgot t'internet == USA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20289265)

Congrats, you're a stupid fucking troll who can't seem to read an entire paragraph without launching into a pointless anti-american tirade. You win an internets.

Re:Silly me, I forgot t'internet == USA (1)

Carbon016 (1129067) | more than 6 years ago | (#20289269)

There must be a euphemism for invoking unrelated starving African children or something in an Internet argument as a corollary to calling your opponent a Nazi ala Godwin's law.. Mugabe's law?

Re:Silly me, I forgot t'internet == USA (5, Insightful)

Dego (182553) | more than 6 years ago | (#20289295)

Yes, people are starving. Yes this site is US centric. Still, can't we have a tech discussion without the "people are starving" bullshit? Quit posting on slashdot and go feed them if its so important to you jackass.

"Socialize" it. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20289183)

I had to quote that word because it's getting ridiculous how often it's thrown around now.

Anyway, the government should make, lay, and lease the fiber to the service providers, or even create one themselves. It would provide a MAJOR employment boost for the people, most notably the linemen who would actually lay the fiber. The manufacturing of it isn't rocket science and from the top down you could hire people for it, from the designers to the janitors. Teams of men and women would go out and work on the network and that would probably be thousands of jobs, if only temporarily. Keep some on per region (or many depending on how hard it is to upkeep) and keep the manufacturing plants open to sell the fiber to businesses.
Lay it all out like we did the highway systems, charge Verizon, Time Warner et. al. to use it. If it breaks, it's like a pothole, fix it.
Make it a not for profit (as if the government wasn't already) take all money from it and put it back into the network, not into some bridge to no where.

Upgrade as necessary, keep the country moving forward, the internet is too important to the world to allow it to slow or crash (not that I fear a crash).

My name is Anonymous Coward and I am running for President.

There is no problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20289193)

Qwest Communications just told me last week that they have plenty of capacity, and I should choose them as a provider because their network was way overbuilt for how many subscribers they have.

That begs the question, is all this talk of a 'shortage' just American ISPs prepping us for a soon-to-come price increase?! I sense capitalism at work!

how much for who? (1)

dentext (117409) | more than 6 years ago | (#20289229)

Who for and where? Net topology is never carpet-flat. US policy is owned by the lobby, S korea has great indidual bband rates, and comapare China, India, and Pakistan's ideas of a backbone.
Just getting bband in a low\middle income urban neighborhood or past the exurbs is still nuts. We are on a plateau that will continue to occupy for sometime. I was listening to a pair of new Verizon guys just hired to sell fibre door2door. One had made 1800 in commisions the previous week. They were only working the creame of the Dallas suburbs.

Back in 95 or so, I was supporting MSN 1.0 when M$ purchased UUNET. In a deal with what became the Worldcom fiasco. I knew the per shift download totals for the newest versions of IE, and it was obvioius the numbers quoted in the paper were far different than what we were seeing on site. They still havent learned thier lesson.
The major oil & gas companies all share the US pipeline sytems, and the sytem of accounting attatched to it makes Enron look like an amish community. (In texas, pipelines are almost as important as high school football. Almost)

There is no honest broker in the backbone game. There are no believable numbers.
 

The problem is not a lack of bandwidth (0)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#20289285)

The problem is that bandwidth is wasted and abused.

And one of the main abuser and waster is EMail. What I'm talking about is Spam, and the need of everyone and his dog to send pretty much every kind of content as an EMail attachment. If there is a way to waste bandwidth, it's the ridiculous need to attach not only pictures to emails (which is oh-so-necessary for those oh-so-wonderful HTML-mails, and, while pointless, at least HTML doesn't add too much to the waste) but everything. Instead of putting the content on a server and sending the link, the content is sent. What's wrong with putting it on a server or, if you don't have one yourself, putting it on rapidshare or similar services and having people download it?

And of course spam. I'll stop wasting electrons by ranting about it, I guess it ain't necessary.

So if our beloved rulers want to save us from a bandwidth collapse, crack down on spammers finally (i.e. don't just make laws but actually spend a dime or two to get those bastards) and educate pointy haired managers that mail is supposed to send text, not arbitrary content.
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>