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!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

How Far Will You Go For Highest Speed Internet?

Unknown Lamer posted about 8 months ago | from the be-back-in-a-year dept.

The Internet 142

Zecheus (1072058) writes "This community is extraordinarily rural. It is considered among the northernmost in the world. In the summer, temperature rises as high as 40F. There are more polar bears than humans. Even the usual ubiquitous and generous Norwegian health care is out of reach: inhabitants leave for the south to give birth or to die. On the other hand, it enjoys the highest quality Internet experience in the world due to recently installed fiber. Care to give it a try? By the way, the area has a turnover rate of over 25% every year."

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

Chattanooga (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46640303)

No need to go to the north pole to get better internet access.

Re:Chattanooga (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46641237)

Except the polar bears will be better neighbors.

The real story: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46640323)

Humans have evolved past the ability to give birth without a hospital.

Re:The real story: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46640455)

You should try talking to your mother some time.

Re:The real story: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46640707)

Talk to my mother all the time, pretty sure she would get a laugh out of the phrase "go south to give birth or die."

You might have missed the joke, so I'll ruin it for everyone. While it's more clear in the article, in the summery it can be read as either "go south to give (birth | die)" or "(go south to give birth) | die."

Re:The real story: (2)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about 8 months ago | (#46640749)

i go outside to Skate or Die.

Re:The real story: (1)

PhotoJim (813785) | about 8 months ago | (#46640777)

They go south precisely because it isn't very summery where they live. :)

heck no (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46640329)

not after this past winter... snow clear up the telephone poles. I want to be in the tropics for the rest of my life...

Re:heck no (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 8 months ago | (#46640563)

Tropics are overrated and the humidity plays havoc with connectors. The margaritas are good, though.

Re:heck no (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46640767)

Try Southern California then...nice and warm and yet dry. It's always fun to talk to people from back east who are constantly digging out from another dumping of snow and complain that we're not getting *enough* rain. Ugh! 72 and sunny again...I need it to rain again so that I can fill up my pool!

Re:heck no (1)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | about 8 months ago | (#46640807)

This, We cheer when it rains.

I'd Walk A Mile... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46640343)

for a 1Gb link.

Re:I'd Walk A Mile... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46640411)

I would walk five hundred miles and I would walk five hundred more, just to be the man who streams Netflix and torrents even that much more...

Re:I'd Walk A Mile... (3, Funny)

StatureOfLiberty (1333335) | about 8 months ago | (#46640597)

Thanks for your proclamation! (It threw a little sunshine on my day)

So how fast is it...? (4, Insightful)

QRDeNameland (873957) | about 8 months ago | (#46640393)

How do you write an article about the "highest speed internet" in the world without a single quantification of how fast it actually is?

Re:So how fast is it...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46640549)

Easy. Just do it like this: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303325204579467542262163298?mod=trending_now_2

I guess it just "goes at the speed of plot", so if you need to download that move in 30 seconds it will take 30 seconds. If it does not matter it goes instantly and if the bad guys have to break the door open first, it'll take 90 seconds, with 20 seconds jumps in between (up and down) based on how sane the cutter worked the material...

Re:So how fast is it...? (0)

Like2Byte (542992) | about 8 months ago | (#46640569)

Did you read the article?

Re:So how fast is it...? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46640649)

The most specific the article gets is

Svalbard enjoys speeds estimated to be 10 to 20 times as fast as any in the rest of Norway.

.

Given that it's possible to get gbit fiber, well...

Re:So how fast is it...? (2)

Like2Byte (542992) | about 8 months ago | (#46640687)

The most specific the article gets is

Svalbard enjoys speeds estimated to be 10 to 20 times as fast as any in the rest of Norway.

.

Given that it's possible to get gbit fiber, well...

But you *did* read it. See what they did there?

Thus endith the lesson. :)

Re:So how fast is it...? (2)

QRDeNameland (873957) | about 8 months ago | (#46640723)

Did you read the article?

Yes. And the closest thing to a quantification was "10 to 20 times as fast as any in the rest of Norway." Which means....what? It tells me that the guy has 43 TB of storage capacity, and even specific climate info about the town, but I'm left to guess the specs of the internet link, which is the subject of the article?

Did I miss something?

Re:So how fast is it...? (2)

Like2Byte (542992) | about 8 months ago | (#46640795)

No, no. Not at all. I was simply suggesting that maybe their point wasn't to get statistics out; but, rather, obtain eyeballs.

I think you're totally spot on - what a wasted opportunity and inferior article. They made a claim without substantiating it at any length.

Oh, and sorry if I offended you. That certainly wasn't my intent. The whole thing is humorous to me.

Re:So how fast is it...? (1)

QRDeNameland (873957) | about 8 months ago | (#46640863)

Oh...never mind...subtle whoosh on my part. :)

Re:So how fast is it...? (2)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 8 months ago | (#46641043)

And the closest thing to a quantification was "10 to 20 times as fast as any in the rest of Norway." Which means....what?

A Norwegian will tell you that the rest of Norway is twice as fast as Sweden. A Swede will claim the opposite.

Hope that helps.

Re:So how fast is it...? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about 8 months ago | (#46640847)

Why, yes, yes I did. Twice, to make sure I wasn't imagining it.

But noooooo, not a single mention of the speed.

I've got fiber right to the little box under my table for 29.95 Euros a month+tax. I have to limit the Bit torrent rate because my hard disk can't keep up with full speed downloads and Windows 7 craps its pants trying to expand the page file to cope (does that make sense to any OS designers outside Redmond?). I'm sure his can't be that much better.

Re:So how fast is it...? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46640947)

If you're using uTorrent, it incorrectly uses memory mapped files in Windows, which causing the Kernel to not release memory mapped ranges and eventually uses all of your physical memory. This is actually working as intended for Windows, which means there is a known way to DOS the host if you have local access. The best part is this memory does not show allocated to a user, but to the kernel, so you can't easily find what is causing the havok.

It's as much uTorrent's fault as it is Window's. It is clearly documented that it works this way when using certain memory mapped file types that uTorrent uses, but it is a horrible design by Microsoft. uTorrent refuses to "fix" this issue because they consider it entirely a problem of Windows. All they need to do is not use memory mapped files and do their own cashing or not cache at all. But nope. This issue is several years old, but is only now becoming more prevalent with faster Internet connections.

Re:So how fast is it...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46640613)

It's fiber, the only limitation is how good the optics are. In a few years, they can purchase 10gb optics for cheap and instantly upgrade their entire network with little effort. When talking about a fiber network, the only speed you care about is the speed of light and what your rate limit is. Modern 1gb optics supports more "speed" than every home user could non-commercially make use of.

Re:So how fast is it...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46641133)

beta or not:
methinks you can put lots more into an optical fiber and they do.
the problem seems to be "how fast can you morse" that is turn on and off the light.
you can combine multiple "slow" devices and their fiber optic output into one and get
1Tbit/sec in one fiber no problem... you know like a prism (not the three letter one).

Re:So how fast is it...? (2)

houghi (78078) | about 8 months ago | (#46641283)

For the people selling it, it is extremely fast. For peole who start using it, it is very fast. For people who use it for a longer time it is pretty fast. For /. people using it on day 2 it is meh.

Also how is the backhaul? (4, Interesting)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about 8 months ago | (#46641291)

I mean sure, they have fast FTTH. Fair enough, but that doesn't do you much good if the backhaul to the rest of the Internet isn't sufficient to support the speeds.

This is something that always gets left out of the "OMG t3h fast internetz!!!" articles on Slashdot. A lot of the "really fast" Internet in the world is basically a big WAN where you have a fast line, and thus fast speeds to your neighbors and ISP, but then lack the backhaul to get those kind of speeds to the wider Internet, since that's the really expensive part.

Not saying that's the case here or not, but it is the kind of info that needs to be included to be useful. Along with, of course, the actual speed.

South Korea, European (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46641649)

I have 1.5Mbps down and .25Mbps up - My AT&T DSL gets a 'F' rating on Speedtest. I consider S. Korea's and European's ISPs to be highest speed.

So, when I can get speeds here in the SE USA like advanced industrial countries, then I won't consider US ISPs to be a bunch of whiny over charging assholes. And no, I do NOT want Uverse shit. This bundling in order to get better service is just marketing bullshit.

Re:So how fast is it...? (4, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | about 8 months ago | (#46641731)

Digging a little they're talking about a 50/50Mbit connection (Norwegian) [teknologia.no] , so the article is wildly exaggerated... triple the mean connection yes, not 10-20 times.

Size of the pipe. (1)

MorbidBBQ (1453553) | about 8 months ago | (#46640397)

Highest speed, or best throughput? Does 2ms of delay for a stock transaction matter more, or 2 seconds of buffering a 1080p movie?

Re:Size of the pipe. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46640421)

Fastest bitcoin mining and best cooling is most important.

Re:Size of the pipe. (3, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 8 months ago | (#46640779)

Exactly. High speed connections aren't any good if your ping times are terrible because you're so far away from civilization. Also, once you get up around 100 mbit/s, it doesn't really matter how fast the connection is. At that point you could stream more than a few HD movies. Let us also not forget that many spinning platter drives have sustained write speeds of less than 100 MB per second, which means that as you approach gigabit speeds, you network connection actually exceeds the speed you can write the data to disk.

Re:Size of the pipe. (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 8 months ago | (#46642043)

If you've just bought a new game on Steam and it's a 20GB download, do you want to wait half an hour (100Mbit) or 3 minutes (Gigabit)? If you're browsing 20MP+ photos online, do the pictures load faster in your browser? What if your disk crashed and you want to get something big from online backup? And as far as I know there's still no BluRay quality streaming service, if you're downloading a torrent then 5 minutes or an hour certainly matters. Yes, 100 to 1000 Mbit is less important than 10 to 100 and even less important than 1 to 10, but I'd take it for a reasonable premium. I know the people on Gigabit trial here in Norway now has been promised to continue it for $100 (599 NOK) a month, which is only slightly more than I pay for 100 Mbit today. I don't need it, but just having more than enough and never lacking bandwidth is one less concern.

Back in my day (4, Insightful)

alta (1263) | about 8 months ago | (#46640407)

I remember how happy I was the first time I had cable internet. I was beta testing for comcast. Free for the first 6 months. So exciting. Now, I'm old (37) and bandwidth doesn't excite me the way it used to. I'm paying for 10MB I get 12MB... I could get up to 100, but why bother. I come home, sit on my couch and have a beer. The kids can and I can play all the minecraft we want on that 12MB connection.

Re:Back in my day (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46640445)

I could get up to 100, but why bother.

Why? Because ...
Well... Because!

Re:Back in my day (1)

alex67500 (1609333) | about 8 months ago | (#46640981)

Because of the well-known maxim:
The faster you download, the bigger your penis gets :-)

Re:Back in my day (1)

plover (150551) | about 8 months ago | (#46641197)

Because of the well-known maxim:
The faster you download, the bigger your penis gets :-)

It's not the size of your bandwidth, but the motion of the torrents.

Re:Back in my day (5, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | about 8 months ago | (#46640483)

The cynic in me would say, all customers of Comcast are beta testing for them...

Re:Back in my day (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46640571)

I'm almost 31 and I find my time more valuable than ever. Waiting to install a 50GB game over a 12mb connection would make me furious. If I wanted to waste my life away, I would take up drugs, but I like to mentally challenge myself and play with friends, so I play a lot of online games. Newer changes to online game management makes it so easy to find out what games your friends are playing, purchase, and download, and jump in. The last thing I want to do is find myself waiting, pissing my life away watching a progress bar.

Unfortunately, I don't have much money and my "real" friends have all moved away to different parts of the country and many are starting families. There is not much to do around here and playing video games with my wife and "online" friends is cheap, convenient, and fun.

I guess if I had children, I would probably prioritize more family events outside the house, but currently I find myself mostly at home to save money and lack of fun things to do outside.

Re:Back in my day (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about 8 months ago | (#46640879)

I guess you are too young to remember downloading DOOM on at 2400bps modem. That took about 2 hours... And that is all you could do with your PC. Unless you had an expensive OS/Shell like OS2 or Desqview. And still your modem was fully occupied.

Re:Back in my day (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 8 months ago | (#46641181)

It was relaxing to wait and dream about the great game downloading, slowly watching the bytes add up, and sipping coffee.

Re:Back in my day (1)

aztracker1 (702135) | about 8 months ago | (#46642011)

Duh, that's why you get 3-4 phone lines... one for voice, one for you to dial out on, and one or two for you to run your bbs... Then your users upload DOOM to you overnight, or your FTN setup will get it to you for the GAMES sub... You bluebox your way into a long distance board to download the best new stuff for your users, and have l33t/pir8 access. New User Voting modules, and secret sub-bbs access boards abound. Though I was in it for the ansi/ascii art scenes and for the message boards more than anything.

The fail is when you're stuck waiting 3 years for US Worst to actually get you more than a second phone line, despite living in a major metro area, when it's 1994 and BBSing is starting to die off in favor of the wider internet.

Re:Back in my day (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 8 months ago | (#46640577)

I'm happy with a 5 MB connection, I hardly tap it out and the matter of bandwidth caps is also a consideration - I'm not planning to pay money when I hit a cap, it's better to just take a vacation from the interwebs.

Re:Back in my day (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46640763)

Becoming content is the first step to becoming complacent. You've lost ambition and don't care that you're being taken advantaged of. Technology is the foundation of all of society. It is the wheel, it is hospitals, it is the phone, is is electricity. Losing fervor about technology is like giving up on life and the betterment of society. Communications is the backbone of all technology, without the sharing of ideas, nothing would be accomplished.

Re:Back in my day (1)

alen (225700) | about 8 months ago | (#46640843)

when i explained what a smart TV was to my mom all she said was that it was a way to make you spend more money, which is true

all the faster connections do is make impulsive challenged people buy something NOW and spend more money

Re:Back in my day (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46641017)

You only spend more money for a faster connection if your ISP is price gouging you. Any legit ISP of size would go the Google fiber way, 5mb for practically free and max media speed for $70. Bandwidth is virtually free, nearly all costs have to do with infrastructure and customer support. Increasing bandwidth actually costs less than handling complaints about slow speeds. I make the assumption that you don't live in the middle of a national forest or somewhere just as remote.

Becoming content (1)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | about 8 months ago | (#46640923)

Becoming content is the first step to becoming complacent.

How do you become content?

I've heard about providing content, but becoming content? Is that, like, entering the matrix?

Re:Becoming content (1)

Cro Magnon (467622) | about 8 months ago | (#46641005)

Becoming content is the first step to becoming complacent.

How do you become content?

I've heard about providing content, but becoming content? Is that, like, entering the matrix?

I think it has something to do with Facebook. Or maybe Google.

Re:Becoming content (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46641769)

By changing the pronunciation.

Re:Becoming content (1)

almitydave (2452422) | about 8 months ago | (#46641039)

Becoming content is the first step to becoming complacent.

How do you become content?

I've heard about providing content, but becoming content?

Facebook.

Re:Back in my day (1)

almitydave (2452422) | about 8 months ago | (#46641085)

Technology is the foundation of all of society. It is the wheel, it is hospitals, it is the phone, is is electricity. Losing fervor about technology is like giving up on life and the betterment of society. Communications is the backbone of all technology, without the sharing of ideas, nothing would be accomplished.

That's right, you have a moral obligation to buy the fastest internet access available to you.

Hmm, now that I think about it, I'm going to try this argument on my wife. If she doesn't let me buy an ultrabook, she hates humanity.

Re:Back in my day (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46640583)

"Back in the day" it mattered because your speed would make difference measured in hours, sometimes in days. It also mattered if surfing alone would work nicely or not. These days, everything beyond 5 Mbit is "very fine" and everything beyond "10ish" does not really matter anymore for most cases. Even downloading 15 GB for a new game or something is working acceptable within a few hours on a ~10 line, in "normal use" there's really no downside anymore. So anything beyond roughly 10 Mbit falls into the category of "luxuary".
That was vastly different when it was about 14 kbit or 33 or 56 or even a Mbit or two.

Re:Back in my day (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46640607)

Bandwidth doesn't really matter after a certain point, 10 Mb is certainly enough for most purposes. Latency is important, though. I'd rather have a 10 Mb connection with no significant latency than an 100 (or 1000) Mb connection with an annoying latency.

My current connection is 1 Gb up and down (campus student housing network), with the real download bandwidth being around one third of that at peak times. I see no significant difference to my previous 100 Mb up/down, as no services support this high speeds. I suspect even peer-to-peer systems would have trouble getting to that speed before completing the transfer. The latency is excellent, though.

Re:Back in my day (2, Insightful)

asylumx (881307) | about 8 months ago | (#46640841)

Bandwidth doesn't really matter after a certain point

Also, 640k will be enough for anyone!

Re:Back in my day (1)

alen (225700) | about 8 months ago | (#46641011)

i have 20/2 and netflix only needs 5 down for HD
i can stream netflix and live TV or hbo go at the same time with no problems

Re:Back in my day (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46642173)

I only realized that my connection wasn't fast enough when I had another techy join me in my residence. I'd be trying to stream video and he'd be downloading. Generally 10mbps per person is sufficient right now. Maybe even 5mbps. However that has to be shaped properly (and NOT by the ISP, but by ones home router). I think many people would be just as content with 1.5mbps though that said. The average for homes I believe is more like 3-7mbps.

Re:Back in my day (0)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | about 8 months ago | (#46640653)

If bandwith was 1 gb/s, video games would be better as there would be a great deal number of more players allowable in the game at once. AKA: Games could be better if bandwith was higher.

Re:Back in my day (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46640875)

MAG had 256 players at once, how many more would be "better?" Also, you went from "would be better" to "could be better", they are not the same. Lastly, is "more players allowable in a game at once" really how you judge a game is good? I rarely spend much time in multiplayer in many of the games I've purchased, so I, for one, don't agree.

Assuming just because more people have more bandwidth, things will improve forgets all of the internet age so far. More bandwidth means more ads. In the dial-up days as DSL and cable were starting to roll out, there was quite a bit of research and teaching going on about being more efficient in designing things to load faster for everyone. I was hoping the iPhone release and its web apps would have also helped shaped how efficient web design could get, but I learned people always take the easy route and major public corporations never care about anything but the buck.

I have a 2MB connection, it should be good enough to do 99% of things across the internet. If something doesn't work across my connection, they don't get any of my money and I make sure everyone I know is also aware.

Priceless (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46641421)

...Now, I'm old (37)...

Re:Back in my day (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46641785)

I have a 1 Gb/s link to the Internet in my office (university with 40 Gb/s links to rest of world) and a 5 Mb/s cable modem at home a few miles away. I don't find the general web browsing experience to be much different between the two. The reality is that there are so many other points of congestion in the commercial Internet that a super fast connection does not give you that much unless you can assess the entire path between your two endpoints, such as we can between two university labs.

There was a point in time where my home Internet was only GPRS (not even EDGE) via my tethered cell phone, and I learned to use privoxy, no script, and request policy to strip out a lot of the garbage in my web stream, so I could effectively browse the web even then. These techniques are still useful today in my office as web sites have become bloated with so much more junk that not only consumes bandwidth but adds absurd latencies to page loads, since there are so many different useless bits being loaded for ads, tracking, etc. All those useless bits are from far-flung servers and a high bandwidth link does not reduce the round-trip latency that much.

Even today, I'll admit I might plan some bulk transfers in advance, doing them from work and carrying them home, using my laptop as the portable media. But of course by doing this I am performing a batch job that might take a day or two for me to finish. I could probably just let such a transfer run at home overnight or when I am at work instead. Once you learn to pipeline your work even a little bit to mask latency, the depth of the pipeline does not make such a qualitative difference.

For large data transfers at work, I am starting to find 1 Gb/s annoyingly slow, so we're planning to upgrade our lab's cluster to 10 Gb/s this year (with a 10 Gb/s uplink to the university backbone too). A 1Gb/s link is slower than a single modern hard disk, much less a RAID array where you would store large data.

How far? Not very... (3, Insightful)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 8 months ago | (#46640539)

Eventually it will come to me. Every couple of years I get a free upgrade as the pipe gets fatter. I can wait.

My speed is fine, fix the latency (3, Interesting)

Snotnose (212196) | about 8 months ago | (#46640543)

I've been happy with my throughput for years. However, my latency seems to rise few ms every year. As I spend more time gaming on-line than watching movies I'd be more willing to pay extra for lower latency.

Bad Neighborhood (1)

xdor (1218206) | about 8 months ago | (#46641287)

I moved into some crummy apartments in Dallas, TX just to get FiOS fiber (25Mbit/25Mbit). Really low latency: about 2ms to google if I recall.

Re:My speed is fine, fix the latency (1)

crtreece (59298) | about 8 months ago | (#46641483)

It takes time to decrypt those packets, figure out if they are going to netflix, piratebay, etc; decide how much delay and replacement advertising to introduce; and implement the decision.

Re:My speed is fine, fix the latency (2)

PPH (736903) | about 8 months ago | (#46642019)

However, my latency seems to rise few ms every year.

That's just old age catching up with you. You need more fiber.

Re:My speed is fine, fix the latency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46642057)

Yeah, calling this an unusually high-quality Internet experience ignores latency, which is a critical part of the end-user experience. A high-bandwidth link to the middle of nowhere is great for downloading/streaming but ranges from annoying to unusable for gaming, VOIP/video-chatting, SSH/RDP/VNC, and even serious Web browsing. Most users would be happier with an uncongested 5-10Mbps connection in, say, San Francisco or New York.

It's only fast for now... (1)

ilsaloving (1534307) | about 8 months ago | (#46640561)

As soon as all your neighbours start using it too, it'll slow down.

*ducks and runs*

fiber (1)

Pharoah_69 (2866937) | about 8 months ago | (#46640573)

They may have the best fiber due to the quality of their goat cheese....and their oil.

Sorry Norway (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46640581)

My Norwegian wood already belongs to Google fiber.

turnover? (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 8 months ago | (#46640587)

I can understand perhaps 25% of the people leaving, but who is going back there to replace them? Is it like EA, they entice new recruits with the fun of playing video games?

Re:turnover? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46641449)

I can understand perhaps 25% of the people leaving, but who is going back there to replace them? Is it like EA, they entice new recruits with the fun of playing video games?

Well, it sure as hell isn't the warm weather and polar bears attracting bandwidth whores.

In all seriousness, after I read "inhabitants leave for the south to give birth or to die" I pretty much lost all interest. I have no idea what re-populates this area.

Re:turnover? (1)

arcade (16638) | about 8 months ago | (#46642225)

What repopulates the area? Easy.

Taxes & import duty are very tiny. You've got some of the most beautiful nature you can imagine. There's lots of researchers connected with universities etc. - making for lots of interesting people to talk with.

A lot of the turnover is actually students wrapping up their studies.

Rural Electrification Act of 1935... (1)

Bruinwar (1034968) | about 8 months ago | (#46640601)

Rural Electrification Act of 1935 brought electricity to rural U.S. In 1949 we extended the act to allow loans to telephone companies wishing to extend their connections to unconnected rural areas. Why can't we apply the same concept to broadband?

Re:Rural Electrification Act of 1935... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46640685)

We did.
Back in the '90s we gave $2B to the telcos to run broadband everywhere. The fucking criminals took the money and did nothing.

Re:Rural Electrification Act of 1935... (1)

bobaferret (513897) | about 8 months ago | (#46641321)

Just as an FYI. Obama administration has done a large number of federal grants to get fiber to rural schools, hospitals, libraries, and court houses. These grants allowed the companies to add on any commercial business along the way. These grants as far as I know do not include residential access however. You'll find that going to legal zoom and quickly creating an LLC will give you access however. We we're finally able to go from a T1@$800/month to 10Mbps at $500/month. Or in our case 50Mbit @ $900/month. The pricing is obviously still commercial, and not residential. But my point here is that it is coming, and it is being funded by the government. It's just pricey and slow to rollout. I might also suggest a neighborhood co-op to pay for the install and then wireless to all of the houses.

Re:Rural Electrification Act of 1935... (1)

PPH (736903) | about 8 months ago | (#46641991)

We did.
Back in the '90s we gave $2B to the telcos to run

Which they did. Not even waiting to hear the last half of the sentence.

Re:Rural Electrification Act of 1935... (1)

alen (225700) | about 8 months ago | (#46640873)

why can't these republicans, and the rural areas are almost fully republican who preach the evils of taxes and high government spending not pay for it themselves? all the tea party nonsense is how bad the blue high tax parts of the country are and yet it's the red states that suck up most of the federal government money for airports that like 5 people use in a year and bridges with one car a day of traffic

Re:Rural Electrification Act of 1935... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46641029)

all the tea party nonsense is how bad the blue high tax parts of the country are and yet it's the red states that suck up most of the federal government money for airports that like 5 people use in a year and bridges with one car a day of traffic

You really have no idea what the federal government of the US spends its money on, do you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png

As a percentage of annual budget:

Medicare/Medicaid: 25%
Social Security: 23%
Department of Defense: 18%
Non-Defense Discretionary: 17%
Other Mandatory: 11%
Net Interest: 6%

Services to rural areas fall under "Non-Defense Discretionary". So do things like NHS, NIST, NASA, etc., and I'm betting that by the time you get to rural services you're down to less than 1% of the federal budget.

Re:Rural Electrification Act of 1935... (1)

alen (225700) | about 8 months ago | (#46642231)

yeah, billions in pork to build and support airports in rural areas along with hardly used bridges and lots of other "infrastructure"
and i pay a tax to build out telecommunications in rural areas in the form of USF

lots of studies show that the blue areas pay the most taxes and the red areas use up most of the federal spending while they preach independence and whatever

MOD PARENT UP +78, INSIGHTFUL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46641127)

We love our liberal drivel at teh Slashdots...

As far as writing a program to get more (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46640635)

More speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity: Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization):

---

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?o... [start64.com]

(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)

Summary:

---

A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... [slashdot.org]

B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org] w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,

C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).

---

* Addons are more complex + slowup browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see) - Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE: I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts ( A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself )

APK

P.S.=> * "A fool makes things bigger + more complex: It takes a touch of genius & a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." - Einstein

** "Less is more" = GOOD engineering!

*** "The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"

...apk

Re:As far as writing a program to get more (1)

webmistressrachel (903577) | about 8 months ago | (#46641667)

"-1: Off-Topic" x 15 ;-)

Re:As far as writing a program to get more (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46641729)

Really? He's getting more speed out of a connection from hosts.

One part conveniently left out (4, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | about 8 months ago | (#46640637)

One part conveniently left out is the military's part in this, they want fiber optics for a bunch of NATO surveillance activities, polar satellites and so on. It's pretty obvious why if you look at a map [unep.org] . Supplying the about 2600 permanent inhabitants with really fast broadband (100% fiber optics now) is just a side effect. True, this cabin area about 3 miles from the main settlement wasn't originally included in the plans, but when the inhabitants dig the ditch and all the fiber company has to do is roll out the cable drum it's a pretty good deal for them too. There are several rural areas - though not quite that remote - here in Norway which has done the digging as a community effort to make the cost bearable for the fiber company. Just last quarter the median broadband in Norway passed 10 Mbit/s, the mean is 18.4 Mbit/s and improving at a nice pace.

50 - 100 Mb/s (3, Informative)

iktos (166530) | about 8 months ago | (#46640735)

Of course Telenor themselves mention the bandwidth: http://www.telenor.com/media/a... [telenor.com]
Fibre optic with lots of Gb/s to the European mainland: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]
Can be noted that any citizen of a country which has signed the Svalbard treaty can move there without needing any permit.

Re:50 - 100 Mb/s (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46641931)

50-100 mbit? Is that it? I was expecting at least triple that, I've got an 80mbit connection here (fastest download speed test I got was just over 79mbit and upload of just over 18mbit) and I'm in a fairly rurual part of the UK.

Re:50 - 100 Mb/s (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46641987)

yawn 50-100 Mb/s how are these slow speeds making news?
I'd expect 10+Gb/s or something with that headline... not something mundane as 50-100mbit..

ISP monthly bandwidth limits temper speed (1)

tagous (1066492) | about 8 months ago | (#46640805)

I am fine with my home high speed 30-50 Mbps. I however the crazy 350 GB monthly limit is nuts. ISPs boast bandwidth at a low price and find profit with the industry standard 250 and 350 monthly limits. With higher bandwidth I seem to just hit my limit faster

Re:ISP monthly bandwidth limits temper speed (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 8 months ago | (#46641213)

Yeah, the ISPs in my area all have really low monthly limits. I did some calculations, and found that no matter which package you choose, you only get around 9-15 hours of full speed transfer before you go over your quota. And you don't always get more hours by moving up to the next tier. Sometimes moving up to the next tier means you get less time on your full speed connection than on the lower package. And 250-350 would be more than I would ever use. The ISPs in my area seem to think that 80-150 should be enough, and even if you're paying for a 25 mbit connection, you should still only need 80 GB of transfer a month.

Re:ISP monthly bandwidth limits temper speed (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 8 months ago | (#46642247)

It has gotten seriously out of control. There are some monthly plans around where I live where you can hit your Monthly cap in well under an hour of usage. What use is that?

It's the upload speed that matters (1)

tiznom (1602661) | about 8 months ago | (#46640943)

As someone who just had Gigabit fiber-optic broadband installed this week I know I would move quite a distance for a connection like this. There's no going back to my 4Mb ADSL connection I had Monday. The other comments pointing out that 50 or even 20Meg connections are only half right. What really matters is the up speed. I have 1Gb (actually tests about 850Mb/s) down and 100Mb up, and that up speed kicks major ass. Hard to describe really, but there is no more waiting for Dropbox to sync files, uploading a new site to a server is crazy fast, and videoconferencing is much better. I called my parents and my ability to send video far exceeds their capacity to recieve it, so they basically get perfect 720p of me and I see the same old pixelated version of them. Fiber at both ends would be really cool. As far as the 1Gb down, it's cool to download Ubuntu isos in a few seconds, but for most browsing the server never makes use of all that speed. Start sending a web page at 100Mb or so and it's loaded instantly so no need to go faster.

Wait until... (1)

Parker Lewis (999165) | about 8 months ago | (#46641023)

...someone start some torrent exchanges, and all will go down! :D

Nothing in article says highest speed in the world (1)

xenoc_1 (140817) | about 8 months ago | (#46641033)

Typical slashdot bad editors. Fastest in Norway != fastest in world.

I now live in a small beach town in Uruguay, on a dirt road, and I got a free upgrade to fibre-to-home, which is being extended to every home in Uruguay. Time for me to get my bogus submission ready for "Uruguay has the best internet in the world". Just because a country is socialist on basic services, and extends fiber to everywhere, does not make it the best in the world. Makes it damn good, but "best" or as hyperbolically stated, "the highest quality Internet experience in the world" requires proof. As others have mentioned, that requires specific speeds, pings, and total transfer allowances, before making such a claim.

Better than the Comcast/ATT/Verizon cabal does not mean "best". Despite what all you US-centric folks may think.

I doubt it. (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 8 months ago | (#46641125)

Is it standard Internet access or Internet II access?

Because Internet II kicks the ever living hell out of standard internet even with the best and shiniest fiber connections. Your in route switches and routing means everything and Internet II still is massively faster than the old public internet.

Um, thanks, no (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 8 months ago | (#46641611)

I live on the edge of the urban growth boundary in my area, and have fiber to the house, so internet access is just fine, thanks. And we have a total lack of polar bears here. Health care sucks, but we can do our own medical research on the net and order medical supplies from Amazon, so I guess it's not all bad.

Pointless article... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46641983)

In no way does it mention the actual speed he gets...

How Far Will I Go? (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 8 months ago | (#46642207)

Well I won't, but I would have to leave my continent to get decent Internet.

At least Northern Norwegia borders places with good Internet speed, so all they needed was a few dozen miles of cable. As a rural Canadian I would have to cross Oceans to get to decent Internet.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?