FYI, they made fun of Time Warner Cable (TWC) with that logo. See http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r28708070- for the details especially http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r28710072- ...

I only have cable for its Internet since that is the only broadband and cheapest available in my cities (no DSL and FIOS even in my neighborhoods).

Quite a bit actually, since I'm a systems engineer. I also gamed competitively on PC's, before all that was national and international. I modded games, built 3D models for games, built all my computers custom with the newest video cards, payed through the nose for the fastest broadband...

and then life happened

I don't argue that the quality of graphics on PC games is better and Steam is an excellent service. I just find that with family and other responsibilities I need to make the most of my time now. Sitting in front of my computer screen for hours not engaging with my family is hardly an option. But I can play tons of games with my family on console. For me, PC's are a solo activity with a huge ongoing investment in time and money. Consoles, I pay once and enjoy from the comfort of my couch, on a giant screen, while engaging with my family.

My real point is that PC's are a great option if your life allows it. Consoles fill a different niche. Just like XBox and PS are aimed at different interests. No one's going to win the argument.

Yeah, the government is rolling out it's "ultra fast broadband" over the next few years, with speeds of up 100mbps, but in reality they've acknowledged it'll be more like 25 for most people.

I'm lucky enough to be on telstras cable network, and have been given 100mbps for free for the next year. Score!

Similar issue in Australia, only the single entity that owned every copper cable in the country (was post master general, then renamed to telecom, then sold off privately as Telstra), owns all of the major TV rights for cable shows (discovery, nat geo etc...), still owns all of the copper lines, and the telephone exchanges, and the pits/ducts....

They have a wholesale side of the company where they are forced by law to allow other service providers access to the infrastructure to sell services on via unbundled local loop (ULL) or line sharing services (LSS).

LSS services are basically telstra renting out everything to the service provider at cost, and a small premium. So they take all the profits, and make it neigh impossible for anyone else to compete with other providers.

ULL services are telstra giving access to just the copper pairs, service providers come in with their own equipment in the headend. The other providers still must pay rent, and line rental fees to telstra.

Imagine then, how these other companies can compete at a retail service level, against the company that owns all the lines?

They can set their prices as high as the competition regulator will allow them (which in a vast majority of the access undertaking costs, is FAR above what it actually costs telstra themselves), and then sell those same services to its retail arm for less than they charge their competition....they can price match and reap way more profits, or undercut them and drive the competition out of the market!!

Competition came in the 90's in the form of an HFC rollout by Optus, but every street Optus went down with HFC, Telstra followed them, the very next week, making their rollout far less lucrative (ie. not commercially viable).

The practice was ruled anti-competitve and telstra got fined heavily for it. Doesnt matter, it stopped anyone else from wanting to roll out an HFC network ever since.

Recently it has come to a head, Telstra have been forced to vertically seperate their wholesale and retail arms, the prices they set have been capped lower on the wholesale side, they cant over-quote competitors for access over what they provide their own retail arm....but thats not enough.

Noone can run out fibre, cause telstra own all the pits and pipes.

So...the government has stepped in, in the past 4 years or so, created a government owned company called NBNco (National Broadband Network Company), to buy up all the copper lines, rip them out, and roll out fibre to 93% of homes using GPON FTTH technology.

The opposition (who will likely win the coming election) wants to tear this apart. The very same people who set up the rules and regulations and sold off telstra into private hands, and made this mess in the first place, wants to go back on relying on private industry to upgrade this - a critical service infrastructure - which has already shown to be a COMPLETE failure in the past.

I hope that whoever wins, this NBN stays....wholesale competition has never ever worked for national infrastructure. Never, in any country.

If only the "competition" hadn't perverted the term flat rate over the years. The only place I can get no-questions-asked broadband access over here is the previously state-owned monopolist. And a proper LTE flat rate is out of the question entirely.

I know, first world problems...

So glad to hear I'm not the only person who hated this film, and quite enjoyed Quantum of Solace.

Walking into Skyfall I had the chilling thought that maybe people loved Skyfall because it was stereotypical rubbish. And so it was. The action scene on the bikes was so fucking ridiculous I wanted to scream. Dude crashes over a bridge / cut to him immediately running atop a train. This is after we've been riding around the rooftops for a while. Fucking please.

And they had a fucking Island Lair! An Island Lair, people. In 2012. And this guy had broadband coming out his fucking ears on his abandoned island lair. Like they couldn't have tracked him down when he was doing his evil deeds. Jesus me beads.

I've been disappointed by Bond before, but after a great return to form in the last two, this was hackery writ large.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

You know what bothers me more than the vertical aspect ratio? Videos that stutter with a slow frame rate. My brain has been trained to think there is some buffering going on with my poor broadband connection. Even when I'm at a cinema - I feel the same.

'99 was a horrible year. Audiogalaxy was working properly, yet broadband and flatrates were unavailable. How easy it was to rack up humongous telephone bills... *shiver*

56k be damned.

@radx No problem on the short comment, I do the exact same thing

I find your question hard to address directly because it is a series of things I find kind of complexly contradictory. IE, market forces causing undesirable things, and the lack of market forces because of centralization causing undesirable things. Not to say you are believing in contradictions, but rather it is a complex set of issues that have to be addressed, In that, I was thinking all day how to address these, and decided on an a round about way, talking about neither, but rather the history and evolution as to why it is viewed the way you see it, and if those things are necessarily bad. This might be a bit long in the tooth, and I apologize up front for that.

Firstly, reactors are the second invention of nuclear. While a reactor type creation were the first demonstration of fission by humans (turns out there are natural fission reactors: Oklo in Gabon, Africa ), the first objective was, of course, weapons. Most of the early tech that was researched was aimed at "how to make a bomb, and fast". As a result, after the war was all said and done, those pieces of technology could most quickly be transitioned to reactor tech, even if more qualified pieces of technology were better suited. As a result, nearly all of Americas 104 (or so) reactors are based on light water pressure vessels, the result of mostly Admiral Rickover's decision to use them in the nuclear navy. This technological lock in made the big players bigger in the nuclear field, as they didn't have to do any heavy lifting on R&D, just sell lucrative fuel contracts.

This had some very toxic effects on the overall development of reactor technology. As a result of this lock-in, the NRC is predisposed to only approving technology the resembles 50 year old reactor technology. Most of the fleet is very old, and all might as well be called Rickover Reactors. Reactors which use solid fuel rods, control rods, water under pressure, ect, are approved; even though there are some other very good candidates for reactor R&D and deployment, it simply is beyond the NRCs desire to make those kinds of changes. These barriers to entry can't be understated, only the very rich could ever afford to attempt to approve a new reactor technology, like mutli-billionaire, and still might not get approved it it smells funny (thorium, what the hell is thorium!)! The result is current reactors use mostly the same innards but have larger requirements. Those requirements also change without notice and they are required to comply with more hast than any industry. So if you built a reactor to code, and the wire mesh standards changed mid construction, you have to comply, so tear down the wall and start over unless you can figure out some way to comply. This has had a multiplication effect on costs and construction times. So many times, complications can arise not because it was "over engineered", but that they have had to go super ad-hawk to make it all work due to changes mid construction. Frankly, it is pretty amazing what they have done with reactor technology to stretch it out this long. Even with the setbacks you mention, these rube goldbergian devices still manage to compete with coal in terms of its cost per Kwh, and blow away things like solar and wind on the carbon free front.

As to reactor size LWRs had to be big in the day because of various reasons, mostly licencing. Currently, there are no real ways to do small reactors because all licencing and regulatory framework assumes it is a 1GW power station. All the huge fees and regulatory framework established by these well engineered at the time, but now ancient marvels. So you need an evacuation plan that is X miles wide ( I think it is 10), even if your reactor is fractionally as large. In other words, there is nothing technically keeping reactors large. I actually would like to see them go more modular, self regulating, and at the point of need. This would simplify transmission greatly and build in a redundancy into the system. It would also potentially open up a huge market to a variety of different small, modular reactors. Currently, though, this is a pipe dream...but a dream well worth having and pushing for.

Also, reactors in the west are pretty safe, if you look at deaths per KWH, even figuring in the worst estimates of Chernobyl, nuclear is one of the best (Chernobyl isn't a western reactor). Even so, safety ratcheting in nuclear safety happens all the time, driving costs and complexity on very old systems up and up with only nominal gains. For instance, there are no computer control systems in a reactor. Each and every gauge is a specific type that is mandated by NRC edict or similar ones abroad (usually very archaic) . This creates a potential for counterfeiter parts and other actions considered foul by many. These edicts do little for safety, most safety comes from proper reactor design, and skillful operation of the plant managers. With plants so expensive, and general costs of power still very competitive, Managers would never want to damage the money output of nuclear reactors. They would very much like to make plant operations a combination of safe, smooth, and affordable. When one of those edges out the other, it tends to find abuses in the real world. If something gets to needlessly costly, managers start looking around for alternatives. Like the DHS, much of nuclear safety is nuclear safety theater...so to a certain extent, some of the abuses don't account for any real significant increase in risk. This isn't always the case, but it has to be evaluated case by case, and for the layperson, this isn't usually something that will be done.

This combination of unwillingness to invest in new reactor technology, higher demands from reactors in general, and a single minded focus on safety, (several NRC chairmen have been decidedly anti-nuclear, that is like having the internet czar hate broadband) have stilted true growth in nuclear technology. For instance, cars are not 100% safe. It is likely you will know someone that will die in a car wreak in the course of your life. This, however, doesn't cause cars to escalate that drastically in safety features or costs to implement features to drop the death rate to 0. Even though in the US, 10s of thousands die each year in cars, you will not see well meaning people call for arresting foam injection or titanium platted unobtanium body frames, mainly because safety isn't the only point of a car. A car, or a plane, or anything really, has a complicated set of benefits and defects that we have to make hard choices on...choices that don't necessarily have a correct answer. There is a benefit curve where excessive costs don't actually improve safety that much more. If everyone in the USA had to spend 10K more on a car for form injection systems that saved 100 lives in the course of a year, is that worth it? I don't have an answer there as a matter of fact, only opinion. And as the same matter of opinion on reactors, most of their cost, complication, and centralization have to do with the special way in which we treat reactors, not the technology itself. If there was a better regulatory framework, you would see (as we kind of are slowly in the industry despite these things) cheaper, easier to fabricate reactors which are safer by default. Designs that start on a fresh sheet of paper, with the latest and greatest in computer modeling (most current reactors were designed before computer simulations on the internals or externals was even a thing) and materials science. I am routing for the molten salt, thorium reactors, but there are a bunch of other generation4 reactors that are just begging to be built.

Right now, getting the NRC to approve a new reactor design takes millions of dollars, ensuring the big boy will stay around for awhile longer yet. And the regularly framework also ensures whatever reactor gets built, it is big, and that it will use solid fuel, and water coolant, and specific dials and gauges...ect. It would be like the FCC saying the exact innards of what a cellphone should be, it would be kind of maddening to cellphone manufacturers..and you most likely wouldn't have an iPhone in the way we have it today. NRC needs to change for any of the problems you mentioned to be resolved. That is a big obstacle, I am not going to lie, it is unlikely to change anytime soon. But I think the promise of carbon free energy with reliable base-load abilities can't be ignored in this green minded future we want to create.

Any rate, thanks for your feedback, hopefully, that wasn't overkill

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

It's a nice (if tired) analogy. We have something called the National Broadband Network here in Australia that's looking to bring fiber to the premises of most Aussies. (eventually)

The sun comprises a vast majority of the static on non-tv channels, the rest is non-television data operating in the tv spectrum (second order distortions from transmitters operating near tv spectrum, static electricity in the troposphere etc.).

Most of it is the sun though, its the closest, highest powered broadband noise transmitter weve got.

Welcome to 2002, Shep, when the term "flat rate" for broadband access started to be watered down. Over here, only the previously state-owned T-Com stuck to their terms and never gave me shit for having traffic of more than 100 gigs a month. But hey, it only affected a small percentage of users, right? So noone gave a fuck.

Skip to 2012, when more and more folks create significant amount of traffic with their smartphones. All of the sudden, this becomes a problem. Getting throttled down to GPRS speed is annoying, isn't it? Guess what, Shep, you should have given a fuck when this started. They've been at it for more than a decade, best of luck trying to make 'em change their ways.

And we can't even create clusters of open WLAN anymore, since we'd be liable for any copyright infringement done through our access points.

I think your post and your sentiment is very shortsighted. The US government has a long history of subsidizing high tech. It's why we lead the world in this area. Countries like China are following the US example and gaining fast, since the US seems to be regressing. China's government's investment in private solar companies dwarfs America's, and is one factor in Solyndra's failure; Solyndra found it hard to compete against chinese products.

I could give numerous example of corporations that receive "Recovery Act" funds that have moved jobs to China this year. Since the Recovery Act is paying off those corporation that "Dey Took Ar Jawbs!" Is it wrong to conclude the recovery act is a product of the Corporate Dominated Politics?

What does this have to do with the video? If anything, Solyndra is a counterexample: an american company building a factory and research facilities in the states, opting to compete on innovation rather than cheap overseas labor. Despite its failure, we should invest in 10 more Solyndras. We need a high skill base in this country; not a population of burger flippers and day laborers.

The WPA (in teh great depression, part of the new deal) provided direct employment. They build the hoover dam, other stuff.

Contrast this to the recovery act, which spends about 80 billion on education, half that on infrastructure, and spreads the rest of the 600 billion all over.

This is a very bad comparison, and a flawed summary of what the recovery act does. For example, the 80 billion in education helped to keep teachers employed. Is that a waste?





From the recovery website:
http://www.recovery.gov/About/Pages/The_Act.aspx

The Recovery Act intends to achieve those goals by:

•Providing $288 billion in tax cuts and benefits for millions of working families and businesses
•Increasing federal funds for education and health care as well as entitlement programs (such as extending unemployment benefits) by $224 billion
•Making $275 billion available for federal contracts, grants and loans
•Requiring recipients of Recovery funds to report quarterly on how they are using the money. All the data is posted on Recovery.gov so the public can track the Recovery funds.
In addition to offering financial aid directly to local school districts, expanding the Child Tax Credit, and underwriting a process to computerize health records to reduce medical errors and save on health care costs, the Recovery Act is targeted at infrastructure development and enhancement. For instance, the Act plans investment in the domestic renewable energy industry and the weatherizing of 75 percent of federal buildings as well as more than one million private homes around the country.

Construction and repair of roads and bridges as well as scientific research and the expansion of broadband and wireless service are also included among the many projects that the Recovery Act will fund.

While many of Recovery Act projects are focused more immediately on jumpstarting the economy, others, especially those involving infrastructure improvements, are expected to contribute to economic growth for many years.

And you would agree that we the people have created this lose-lose, toxic atmosphere?

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Obama and Paul are both good guys. I give them both the benefit of the doubt that they'd like to kick some ass in Washington, but it's not possible with the way our elections are structured. In order to get elected, you not only need big business bucks, but you also need to reassure big business that their power will not be challenged, lest they tear you apart in the media. This creates an election to election cycle of dependency that nullifies not only the voice of the people, but also the vision of the politician.
For Ron Paul to get elected, he would need both the financial and moral support of multinational corporations, which leaves his supporters with 2 possible outcomes: a principled loser or a neutered winner.
Lessig talks about this cycle of dependency in the latter half of this video: http://videosift.com/video/Lawrence-Lessig-Your-Broadband
-Milked-For-Profit-Not-Speed
Until we sort out our campaign finance system, we will always have subservient leaders.

Obama and Paul are both good guys. I give them both the benefit of the doubt that they'd like to kick some ass in Washington, but it's not possible with the way our elections are structured. In order to get elected, you not only need big business bucks, but you also need to reassure big business that their power will not be challenged, lest they tear you apart in the media. This creates an election to election cycle of dependency that nullifies not only the voice of the people, but also the vision of the politician.

For Ron Paul to get elected, he would need both the financial and moral support of multinational corporations, which leaves his supporters with 2 possible outcomes: a principled loser or a neutered winner.

Lessig talks about this cycle of dependency in the latter half of this video: http://videosift.com/video/Lawrence-Lessig-Your-Broadband-Milked-For-Profit-Not-Speed

Until we sort out our campaign finance system, we will always have subservient leaders.