The general state of Internet broadband [2022] *spawn*

[swaaye]

What's the easiest and fastest way to get your hit of a new release? Download of course. As long as you are in an urban center with super fabulous Internet access.

I've noticed how they continuously run a huge sale on their store. It has an end date every month but lol yeah not really. Sneaky!

 

[Deleted member 11852]

What's the easiest and fastest way to get your hit of a new release? Download of course. As long as you are in an urban center with super fabulous Internet access.

Even when I had terrible internet, as it it would take - with a good wind - manage about 8Gb/hour - pre-loads made the download much less of an issue than it used to be. But I'm sure there are still folks for which it's quicker to get a disc on day 1.

 

[swaaye]

Even when I had terrible internet, as it it would take - with a good wind - manage about 8Gb/hour - pre-loads made the download much less of an issue than it used to be. But I'm sure there are still folks for which it's quicker to get a disc on day 1.

Yeah I suppose. Around here if you are rural the option is usually only DSL that is good for 3-10mbps depending on time of day. Upload is usually <1mbps with wavering latency. So, if you want to game, hope you are the only user of the connection.

 

[JPT]

Yeah I suppose. Around here if you are rural the option is usually only DSL that is good for 3-10mbps depending on time of day. Upload is usually <1mbps with wavering latency. So, if you want to game, hope you are the only user of the connection.

What country and why is it so? I understand if its in the middle of Australia, but, getting 50Mbps to most places is not that expensive nor that difficult.

 

[swaaye]

What country and why is it so? I understand if its in the middle of Australia, but, getting 50Mbps to most places is not that expensive nor that difficult.

This is the Midwest USA. Outside of a city it can quickly turn into farmland, forests (sometimes protected), sometimes minimal access and dirt roads, many sq miles of very minimal infrastructure. Especially as you get into northernmost areas that are just solid forest. Cell signal is questionable too and will usually be 3G of some kind.

If I drive 10-15 miles west right now I will go from gigabit access to that lovely DSL access above.

It's so old school here we have WW2 bombers flying around. (Hehe it's EAA week)

 

[PSman1700]

It's so old school here we have WW2 bombers flying around. (Hehe it's EAA week)

Any F16's breaking the sound barrier this year too? (pilot error last year)

 

[swaaye]

Any F16's breaking the sound barrier this year too? (pilot error last year)

Sadly have not heard any booms lol

 

[JPT]

This is the Midwest USA. Outside of a city it can quickly turn into farmland, forests (sometimes protected), sometimes minimal access and dirt roads, many sq miles of very minimal infrastructure. Especially as you get into northernmost areas that are just solid forest. Cell signal is questionable too and will usually be 3G of some kind.

If I drive 10-15 miles west right now I will go from gigabit access to that lovely DSL access above.

It's so old school here we have WW2 bombers flying around. (Hehe it's EAA week)

Off topic, but how do you get electricity and water? If you got those then it's "just" pulling fibers across the same paths.
In Norway, they plunked down a ton of fiber along the railroad, that is how they built a backbone that connects most of the country.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Off topic, but how do you get electricity and water? If you got those then it's "just" pulling fibers across the same paths.
In Norway, they plunked down a ton of fiber along the railroad, that is how they built a backbone that connects most of the country.

The US is huge. It's roughly the size of the entirety of Europe. Most of the population is around the larger population centers. So for example, the state of Montana has a population of just over 1 million while the state of North Dakota has a population of just 779 thousand. North Dakota is a bit larger than half the size of Norway, ~71k square miles versus ~125k square miles, but only 779k population versus 5.52 million population.

Basically depending on the country in Europe, populations may be more dense than some states in the US. That makes it more affordable to roll out internet infrastructure if you know thousands of people will be using that trunk of the internet versus potentially only 1's, 10's or 100's of people.

You can easily have a random area in the US that is the size of Lithuania (~39k square miles) that might have less than 100k people in it. It becomes economically unfeasible to have ultra high speed broadband in those areas.

And it isn't like it's great across all of Europe either. Romania for instance has an average internet speed of 160 Mb/s. In the major cities the slowest speed available is apparently around 500 Mb/s and tops out at 1 Gb/s. That means the more remote villages are likely down in the single digit Mb/s range or lower with some communities likely having no broadband, similar to many smaller communities in remote areas of the US.

When Strippin and Dodger (married Twitch streamers) moved to the UK about 2-3 years ago, there was no internet where they moved. They had to pay the closest internet provider thousands of pounds to get broadband internet out to their area at a sufficient speed that they could stream and it took something like 3 months to get internet out to their area. Similar to what you can do in some remote areas of the US (like out at my family ranch, we're so far away from any internet trunks that we'd have to pay thousands of dollars to get broadband to the ranch). We do have mobile internet there, however, so it's not as bad as it could be in other remote areas of say Idaho which don't even have cell service because there's no reason to put up cell towers when there might only be 10 people in a 100 square mile area.

Regards,
SB

 

[JPT]

The US is huge. It's roughly the size of the entirety of Europe. Most of the population is around the larger population centers. So for example, the state of Montana has a population of just over 1 million while the state of North Dakota has a population of just 779 thousand. North Dakota is a bit larger than half the size of Norway, ~71k square miles versus ~125k square miles, but only 779k population versus 5.52 million population.

Basically depending on the country in Europe, populations may be more dense than some states in the US. That makes it more affordable to roll out internet infrastructure if you know thousands of people will be using that trunk of the internet versus potentially only 1's, 10's or 100's of people.

You can easily have a random area in the US that is the size of Lithuania (~39k square miles) that might have less than 100k people in it. It becomes economically unfeasible to have ultra high speed broadband in those areas.

I totally get that size does matter in this case, but do you generate your own electricity? Do pump up your own water?
But we have farms on top of mountain sides that do not have roads, that have electricity and broadband. They follow the same path as the electricity cables, that is no brainer way to do it, if you do not want to spend much time on planning.
Also 50Mbps is not high-speed, which probably would be a super upgrade for a lot of people in the cases we are talking about.

Yes, UK has the same problem, which is why I think it's more a systemic issue of the country and not an issue with size. Regarding Romania, I spent some time there 5-6 years ago and there are probably many small towns that have lesser service, but everywhere I went, they had decent internet, I spent most time in Targu Mures and other cities around. Then again I spent some time outside Munich about 10 years ago and that company had 2Mbps SHDSL link....
Deploying fiber is cheaper to do in rural areas than in urban usually. My grandmothers house on the coast far away from everything, got good 4G speeds.
Sorry about the mini-rant, I would think that the powers that be, would want people to have internet.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I totally get that size does matter in this case, but do you generate your own electricity? Do pump up your own water?
But we have farms on top of mountain sides that do not have roads, that have electricity and broadband. They follow the same path as the electricity cables, that is no brainer way to do it, if you do not want to spend much time on planning.
Also 50Mbps is not high-speed, which probably would be a super upgrade for a lot of people in the cases we are talking about.

Yes, UK has the same problem, which is why I think it's more a systemic issue of the country and not an issue with size. Regarding Romania, I spent some time there 5-6 years ago and there are probably many small towns that have lesser service, but everywhere I went, they had decent internet, I spent most time in Targu Mures and other cities around. Then again I spent some time outside Munich about 10 years ago and that company had 2Mbps SHDSL link....
Deploying fiber is cheaper to do in rural areas than in urban usually. My grandmothers house on the coast far away from everything, got good 4G speeds.
Sorry about the mini-rant, I would think that the powers that be, would want people to have internet.

To give you a rough idea for the family ranch.

To get DSL broadband over copper wire would cost thousands of dollars to connect to the nearest access point on an internet trunk.

To get DSL broadband over fiber would cost 10's of thousands of dollars to connect to the nearest access point on an internet trunk.

Cable internet isn't even an option as the distance required is significantly longer (to the nearest town with cable access).

DSL over copper is cheaper as they can be strung along the existing telephone landline infrastructure (telephone poles with suspended wires in the countryside).

DSL over fiber is required to be routed underground as fiber is more easily damaged. That means digging a ditch miles or 10's of miles long as well as conduits within which the fiber rests. If it's meant to service a community it's not so bad as the cost can be shared with many people. If it's just for one ranch house, you pay for the entire thing yourself.

Our ranch house is likely only 10-20 miles from the nearly internet trunk. If you're in a more remote part of the US, your ranch house could be over 100 miles from the nearest internet trunk with you being the only person that will be serviced by that infrastructure.

If that's the case, then as the sole subscriber to the service for that 10-100+ mile stretch of internet cable, then you'll be paying at least 500-1000 USD a month for high speed broadband. That price includes a service contract for a technician to handle any potential outages or breaks that 10-100+ mile stretch of internet cable. Even DSL over copper wire would be expensive as you would require multiple repeater stations that can boost the signal periodically so it can actually reach your ranch house.

Regards,
SB

 

[iroboto]

To give you a rough idea for the family ranch.

To get DSL broadband over copper wire would cost thousands of dollars to connect to the nearest access point on an internet trunk.

To get DSL broadband over fiber would cost 10's of thousands of dollars to connect to the nearest access point on an internet trunk.

Cable internet isn't even an option as the distance required is significantly longer (to the nearest town with cable access).

DSL over copper is cheaper as they can be strung along the existing telephone landline infrastructure (telephone poles with suspended wires in the countryside).

DSL over fiber is required to be routed underground as fiber is more easily damaged. That means digging a ditch miles or 10's of miles long as well as conduits within which the fiber rests. If it's meant to service a community it's not so bad as the cost can be shared with many people. If it's just for one ranch house, you pay for the entire thing yourself.

Our ranch house is likely only 10-20 miles from the nearly internet trunk. If you're in a more remote part of the US, your ranch house could be over 100 miles from the nearest internet trunk with you being the only person that will be serviced by that infrastructure.

If that's the case, then as the sole subscriber to the service for that 10-100+ mile stretch of internet cable, then you'll be paying at least 500-1000 USD a month for high speed broadband. That price includes a service contract for a technician to handle any potential outages or breaks that 10-100+ mile stretch of internet cable. Even DSL over copper wire would be expensive as you would require multiple repeater stations that can boost the signal periodically so it can actually reach your ranch house.

Regards,
SB

Starlink is way cheaper for rural areas like that. It's basically 125-140 CAD. I think the prices went up a tad, but the speeds you get are significantly better than landlines at that price.

 

[JPT]

To give you a rough idea for the family ranch.

Not to be a total douche, but I have 20+ years in and around the ISP business, I co-founded an ISP back in 2002 (we sold out way to cheap and early). Albeit I mainly worked on the tech side, your case is just another bump that can be fixed.

The points you are listing are the same, all over the world outside the urban areas.
Worst case, fixed p2p wireless would work for your ranch, I guess.
You do not have to put the fiber underground, it's quite normal to attach it to the electricity conduits and poles etc, assuming the environment is not too harsh.
But if you got a ranch I assume that you can dig the fiber trench at least across your land?
Also as you mention, if it's a community it will be cheaper, but in general it is one of those expenses that are worth it.

Anyway, what I am trying to convey, once upon a time they rolled out electricity and broadband is basically just the same. It's not that hard or expensive vs what the upside will be for society, but that is what I mean about systemic issue for the country if they do not try to do this.

 

[JPT]

Starlink is way cheaper for rural areas like that. It's basically 125-140 CAD. I think the prices went up a tad, but the speeds you get are significantly better than landlines at that price.

If you are in the coverage area, it looks to be a very good alternative.
I looked at it for my parents vacation home in the Philippines, but it was cheaper to get fiber. Then my mom vetoed it, since they only spend about 8 weeks there a year. So they are happy with a 4G pocket router....

There will be fiber there installed soon, when I go there this autumn for vacation. Easier to get forgiveness, then permission....

 

[swaaye]

fixed p2p wireless would work for your ranch, I guess.

That reminded me that I have a coworker out in farm land with this solution. P2P wireless of some kind that ends as DSL. It works well enough but the bandwidth is only 10/1 mbps.

My parents in upper Michigan have copper DSL that is effectively 6/1. They are also around national forest which makes wireless options and cell service very limited.

 

[orangpelupa]

That reminded me that I have a coworker out in farm land with this solution. P2P wireless of some kind that ends as DSL. It works well enough but the bandwidth is only 10/1 mbps.

My parents in upper Michigan have copper DSL that is effectively 6/1. They are also around national forest which makes wireless options and cell service very limited.

Nowadays there are a lot of easy to setup point to point wireless with high bandwidth. So it can take advantage of fiber on the endpoint that got internet.

Just make sure to check whether the frequency use is in accordance with local law, or any other law related

 

[swaaye]

Nowadays there are a lot of easy to setup point to point wireless with high bandwidth. So it can take advantage of fiber on the endpoint that got internet.

Just make sure to check whether the frequency use is in accordance with local law, or any other law related

Their ISP is CenturyLink. They seem to dominate the rural areas around here and naturally as a result aren't big on improving anything.

 

[iroboto]

Not to be a total douche, but I have 20+ years in and around the ISP business, I co-founded an ISP back in 2002 (we sold out way to cheap and early). Albeit I mainly worked on the tech side, your case is just another bump that can be fixed.

The points you are listing are the same, all over the world outside the urban areas.
Worst case, fixed p2p wireless would work for your ranch, I guess.
You do not have to put the fiber underground, it's quite normal to attach it to the electricity conduits and poles etc, assuming the environment is not too harsh.
But if you got a ranch I assume that you can dig the fiber trench at least across your land?
Also as you mention, if it's a community it will be cheaper, but in general it is one of those expenses that are worth it.

Anyway, what I am trying to convey, once upon a time they rolled out electricity and broadband is basically just the same. It's not that hard or expensive vs what the upside will be for society, but that is what I mean about systemic issue for the country if they do not try to do this.

Definitely, I did product management for my telco and I had a smaller portfolio. But one product we sold for our rural customers was a P2P dish for rural areas. It was definitely faster than our basic BRI/PRIs, and better than ADSL if I recall correctly. I think if I had to run a business from a ranch however, I'd probably go the dish route over cabling. I feel like cabling can be a maintenance nightmare if the cable gets cut, they're just logistically more area to cover to determine where it happened. Dish is relatively straight forward, it sucks more when weather sucks.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Starlink is way cheaper for rural areas like that. It's basically 125-140 CAD. I think the prices went up a tad, but the speeds you get are significantly better than landlines at that price.

Oh yeah, I've been monitoring that to see when it might be possible to get it for the ranch house. Unfortunately availability is tight and we'd be on a waiting list. Our family is a bit old fashioned and prefers not to put down a deposit just to be put on a waiting list. So, I'm just waiting for the availability to be better in our area before suggesting they move off of mobile internet.

Regards,
SB

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Worst case, fixed p2p wireless would work for your ranch, I guess.
You do not have to put the fiber underground, it's quite normal to attach it to the electricity conduits and poles etc, assuming the environment is not too harsh.

We have high wind conditions depending on the time of year. High enough that they can blow over trees if the trees aren't healthy. We'd obviously be able to dig our own trenches for a conduit but once it gets to a public road, it's a bit of a windy path from there as outside of the public roads most of the land around that area is privately owned or federally managed forests where our government prevents access to any sort of development (like infrastructure) outside of some corridors for high power electric transmission cables.

P2P would be a potential solution but the area is heavily wooded and hilly between farming/ranching plots without easy access to the hilltops. In most cases we'd likely need to get the permission of the private land owner if we wanted to put a tower on their property. Servicing those towers then becomes a potentially prickly issue if a technician needed to go out.

Telephone poles tend to follow the established roads here which makes mounting P2P wireless repeaters a bit troublesome (winding roads between hills that are heavily forested in many cases). The house is remote enough that we only get cell service with one cellular provider (Verizon) and even then it varies between 1 and 2 bars at the ranch house and no service on some parts of our property.

Many of the ranchers and farmers up north of us are even worse off and don't get any cell service due to the sparse population combined with the rugged terrain.

Regards,
SB