Discussion:
Earnings for the author
Add Reply
Moriarty
2018-07-16 23:22:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
A question for our resident authors, or anyone else able to answer.

I recently read James Nicoll's review of Ruthanna Emrys' "Winter Tide", a sequel of sorts to HPL's classic tale "The Shadow Over Innsmouth", told from the point of view of one of the Deep Ones. Sufficiently intrigued by the concept, I bought a copy at my local bricks-and-mortar SF bookshop for about $20.

BUT

The kindle edition from Amazon is $12, so I could have saved a bit by getting it instead. I chose not to as: a) I wanted to support the local shop; b) I still like to read an actual paper book from time to time; and c) Amazon is geoblocking Australia so fuck them.

So my question:

Given a book that sells for $20 (mmpb) or $12 (kindle edition), how much, approximately, would the author expect from the two sales? Would this be less because it's Emrys' first book? Would it be different because the sale was in Australia in our dollars?

I ask because, as well as considering which book seller to support, I'd also like to know how my choice of edition affects the author.

-Moriarty
Dorothy J Heydt
2018-07-16 23:51:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Moriarty
A question for our resident authors, or anyone else able to answer.
I recently read James Nicoll's review of Ruthanna Emrys' "Winter Tide",
a sequel of sorts to HPL's classic tale "The Shadow Over Innsmouth",
told from the point of view of one of the Deep Ones. Sufficiently
intrigued by the concept, I bought a copy at my local bricks-and-mortar
SF bookshop for about $20.
BUT
The kindle edition from Amazon is $12, so I could have saved a bit by
getting it instead. I chose not to as: a) I wanted to support the local
shop; b) I still like to read an actual paper book from time to time;
and c) Amazon is geoblocking Australia so fuck them.
Given a book that sells for $20 (mmpb) or $12 (kindle edition), how
much, approximately, would the author expect from the two sales? Would
this be less because it's Emrys' first book? Would it be different
because the sale was in Australia in our dollars?
I ask because, as well as considering which book seller to support, I'd
also like to know how my choice of edition affects the author.
For the sale of one mmpb, maybe a few cents. Kindle pays a
percentage -- but I don't know how many percentage points -- of
the sale price.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-07-17 00:00:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Moriarty
A question for our resident authors, or anyone else able to
answer.
I recently read James Nicoll's review of Ruthanna Emrys' "Winter
Tide", a sequel of sorts to HPL's classic tale "The Shadow Over
Innsmouth", told from the point of view of one of the Deep Ones.
Sufficiently intrigued by the concept, I bought a copy at my
local bricks-and-mortar SF bookshop for about $20.
BUT
The kindle edition from Amazon is $12, so I could have saved a
bit by getting it instead. I chose not to as: a) I wanted to
support the local shop; b) I still like to read an actual paper
book from time to time; and c) Amazon is geoblocking Australia
so fuck them.
Given a book that sells for $20 (mmpb) or $12 (kindle edition),
how much, approximately, would the author expect from the two
sales? Would this be less because it's Emrys' first book? Would
it be different because the sale was in Australia in our
dollars?
I ask because, as well as considering which book seller to
support, I'd also like to know how my choice of edition affects
the author.
Kind of depends on how the ebooks are offered for sale. If it's
through the same publisher, I suspect the royalties ar a little bit
higher a percentage on a lower (on average) retail price. No idea
how it works out.

If, however, the author is selling directly through Amazon on the
ebooks, I believe the minimum cut to the author is 35% (where
royalties on paper books are generally less than 10) and can go as
high as 70.

I expect Lawrence can give you a more definitive explanation, but
there really isn't just one answer.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
2018-07-17 03:41:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 17:00:11 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Moriarty
A question for our resident authors, or anyone else able to
answer.
I recently read James Nicoll's review of Ruthanna Emrys' "Winter
Tide", a sequel of sorts to HPL's classic tale "The Shadow Over
Innsmouth", told from the point of view of one of the Deep Ones.
Sufficiently intrigued by the concept, I bought a copy at my
local bricks-and-mortar SF bookshop for about $20.
BUT
The kindle edition from Amazon is $12, so I could have saved a
bit by getting it instead. I chose not to as: a) I wanted to
support the local shop; b) I still like to read an actual paper
book from time to time; and c) Amazon is geoblocking Australia
so fuck them.
Given a book that sells for $20 (mmpb) or $12 (kindle edition),
how much, approximately, would the author expect from the two
sales? Would this be less because it's Emrys' first book? Would
it be different because the sale was in Australia in our
dollars?
I ask because, as well as considering which book seller to
support, I'd also like to know how my choice of edition affects
the author.
Kind of depends on how the ebooks are offered for sale. If it's
through the same publisher, I suspect the royalties ar a little bit
higher a percentage on a lower (on average) retail price. No idea
how it works out.
If, however, the author is selling directly through Amazon on the
ebooks, I believe the minimum cut to the author is 35% (where
royalties on paper books are generally less than 10) and can go as
high as 70.
I expect Lawrence can give you a more definitive explanation, but
there really isn't just one answer.
Yeah.

I do not know how things work in Australia, but I do know U.S. and
British publishing customs. A mass-market paperback will normally
earn a royalty equivalent to 6%, 8%, or 10% of cover price; if this is
a beginning author she probably got 6%, so that $20.00 book earns her
$1.20.

Meanwhile, if the ebook is self-published through Kindle Direct, her
cut would be 70% in the U.S. and Europe, but 35% in, say, India or
Japan (unless they've changed it). I don't know where Australia
falls. That would therefore be $8.40 to her in the U.S., $4.20 in
India.

HOWEVER. These days most publishers grab ebook rights, and royalties
aren't yet as standardized as they are for paper. Some publishers pay
25% of list, i.e., $3.00 on a $12 ebook. Others pay 50% of receipts,
which assuming the normal 70% share from Amazon means $4.20. Some
greedy bastards pay 25% of receipts, which would be $2.10. Some pay
even less. Other terms are possible. Also, receipts aren't always
the full 70% -- sometimes Amazon tacks on other charges, and if
they've ever told anyone how things like "digital distribution charge"
work, I missed it. It's usually only a couple of cents.

So you may see that in fact, authors often make more on an ebook than
on a paperback.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
My latest novel is Stone Unturned: A Legend of Ethshar.
See http://www.ethshar.com/StoneUnturned.shtml
Moriarty
2018-07-17 21:52:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 17:00:11 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Moriarty
A question for our resident authors, or anyone else able to
answer.
I recently read James Nicoll's review of Ruthanna Emrys' "Winter
Tide", a sequel of sorts to HPL's classic tale "The Shadow Over
Innsmouth", told from the point of view of one of the Deep Ones.
Sufficiently intrigued by the concept, I bought a copy at my
local bricks-and-mortar SF bookshop for about $20.
BUT
The kindle edition from Amazon is $12, so I could have saved a
bit by getting it instead. I chose not to as: a) I wanted to
support the local shop; b) I still like to read an actual paper
book from time to time; and c) Amazon is geoblocking Australia
so fuck them.
Given a book that sells for $20 (mmpb) or $12 (kindle edition),
how much, approximately, would the author expect from the two
sales? Would this be less because it's Emrys' first book? Would
it be different because the sale was in Australia in our
dollars?
I ask because, as well as considering which book seller to
support, I'd also like to know how my choice of edition affects
the author.
Kind of depends on how the ebooks are offered for sale. If it's
through the same publisher, I suspect the royalties ar a little bit
higher a percentage on a lower (on average) retail price. No idea
how it works out.
If, however, the author is selling directly through Amazon on the
ebooks, I believe the minimum cut to the author is 35% (where
royalties on paper books are generally less than 10) and can go as
high as 70.
I expect Lawrence can give you a more definitive explanation, but
there really isn't just one answer.
Yeah.
I do not know how things work in Australia, but I do know U.S. and
British publishing customs. A mass-market paperback will normally
earn a royalty equivalent to 6%, 8%, or 10% of cover price; if this is
a beginning author she probably got 6%, so that $20.00 book earns her
$1.20.
Meanwhile, if the ebook is self-published through Kindle Direct, her
cut would be 70% in the U.S. and Europe, but 35% in, say, India or
Japan (unless they've changed it). I don't know where Australia
falls. That would therefore be $8.40 to her in the U.S., $4.20 in
India.
HOWEVER. These days most publishers grab ebook rights, and royalties
aren't yet as standardized as they are for paper. Some publishers pay
25% of list, i.e., $3.00 on a $12 ebook. Others pay 50% of receipts,
which assuming the normal 70% share from Amazon means $4.20. Some
greedy bastards pay 25% of receipts, which would be $2.10. Some pay
even less. Other terms are possible. Also, receipts aren't always
the full 70% -- sometimes Amazon tacks on other charges, and if
they've ever told anyone how things like "digital distribution charge"
work, I missed it. It's usually only a couple of cents.
So you may see that in fact, authors often make more on an ebook than
on a paperback.
Thanks, I thought that might be the case. Obviously, I'd like to support the author but the bricks-and-mortar SF shop that I've been going to for nearly 40 years, as bookshop after bookshop closes down, has more claim on me.

Particularly since, as I said earlier, Amazon is geoblocking Australia.

-Moriarty
David DeLaney
2018-07-18 12:41:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Moriarty
Sufficiently intrigued by the concept, I bought a copy at my
local bricks-and-mortar SF bookshop for about $20.
[...]
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Moriarty
Given a book that sells for $20 (mmpb) or $12 (kindle edition),
I do not know how things work in Australia, but I do know U.S. and
British publishing customs. A mass-market paperback will normally
earn a royalty equivalent to 6%, 8%, or 10% of cover price; if this is
a beginning author she probably got 6%, so that $20.00 book earns her $1.20.
I'm unfamiliar with AU processes also, though I hear their prices are higher -
but twenty bucks for a MMPB ??! What's more than twice what they cost here!

Dave, what are they making you pay for generic hardbacks?
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
So you may see that in fact, authors often make more on an ebook than
on a paperback.
Yes, okay, I'll throw this fact into my tipping mental balance. I am still
unhappy about the imminent death of MMPBs (film at $11), but also about the
"ebooks are priced at the most expensive physical version" paradigm. Rant
available on request.
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
2018-07-18 13:31:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 07:41:56 -0500, David DeLaney
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Moriarty
Sufficiently intrigued by the concept, I bought a copy at my
local bricks-and-mortar SF bookshop for about $20.
[...]
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Moriarty
Given a book that sells for $20 (mmpb) or $12 (kindle edition),
I do not know how things work in Australia, but I do know U.S. and
British publishing customs. A mass-market paperback will normally
earn a royalty equivalent to 6%, 8%, or 10% of cover price; if this is
a beginning author she probably got 6%, so that $20.00 book earns her $1.20.
I'm unfamiliar with AU processes also, though I hear their prices are higher -
but twenty bucks for a MMPB ??! What's more than twice what they cost here!
I assume that's Australian dollars, not U.S. It's about $14.75 U.S.
Still steep but not ridiculous.
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
So you may see that in fact, authors often make more on an ebook than
on a paperback.
Yes, okay, I'll throw this fact into my tipping mental balance. I am still
unhappy about the imminent death of MMPBs (film at $11), but also about the
"ebooks are priced at the most expensive physical version" paradigm. Rant
available on request.
Ebook pricing is all over the place.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
My latest novel is Stone Unturned: A Legend of Ethshar.
See http://www.ethshar.com/StoneUnturned.shtml
Scott Lurndal
2018-07-18 14:33:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 07:41:56 -0500, David DeLaney
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Moriarty
Given a book that sells for $20 (mmpb) or $12 (kindle edition),
I do not know how things work in Australia, but I do know U.S. and
British publishing customs. A mass-market paperback will normally
earn a royalty equivalent to 6%, 8%, or 10% of cover price; if this is
I assume that's Australian dollars, not U.S. It's about $14.75 U.S.
Still steep but not ridiculous.
Spoken like a true author.

:-)
Kevrob
2018-07-20 23:22:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 07:41:56 -0500, David DeLaney
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Moriarty
Given a book that sells for $20 (mmpb) or $12 (kindle edition),
I do not know how things work in Australia, but I do know U.S. and
British publishing customs. A mass-market paperback will normally
earn a royalty equivalent to 6%, 8%, or 10% of cover price; if this is
I assume that's Australian dollars, not U.S. It's about $14.75 U.S.
Still steep but not ridiculous.
Spoken like a true author.
:-)
"The price of a new hardcover novel should approximate
the price of a fine men's dress shirt."
Late bookseller A. David Schwartz, possibly quoting
his father, Harry W. Schwartz.

I believe the idea was to maintain price parity from the
days when a new hardback cost $2.00-$3.00.

See:

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/08/what-a-1925-ad-for-i-the-great-gatsby-i-tells-us-about-book-prices/261390/

See also:

https://vintagedancer.com/1920s/1920s-mens-shirts-and-collars-history/

"Parity" is an egregious concept, most notably used in the US in
discussions of setting the level of agricultural subsidies.
The farmers always wanted the target price set at a parity that
would emulate the years just before the US's entry into The
Great War, when food prices were high, due to European powers using
much of their farmland to plant dead bodies, not crops.

"Purchasing power parity" is a good tool for comparing cost of
living, but secular increases or decreases in prices due to
changes in supply and demand, often driven by technological
changes have to be taken into account when making comparisons
over time. Price is, after all, not a function of inputs, but
of the aggregate subjective decision-making of all actors in
the market. Prices can't be kept artificially high by force of
will.

Kevin R
(Getting all Austrian and former bookseller-y.)
Cryptoengineer
2018-07-21 02:24:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 07:41:56 -0500, David DeLaney
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Moriarty
Given a book that sells for $20 (mmpb) or $12 (kindle edition),
I do not know how things work in Australia, but I do know U.S.
and British publishing customs. A mass-market paperback will
normally earn a royalty equivalent to 6%, 8%, or 10% of cover
price; if this is
I assume that's Australian dollars, not U.S. It's about $14.75 U.S.
Still steep but not ridiculous.
Spoken like a true author.
:-)
"The price of a new hardcover novel should approximate
the price of a fine men's dress shirt."
Late bookseller A. David Schwartz, possibly quoting
his father, Harry W. Schwartz.
I believe the idea was to maintain price parity from the
days when a new hardback cost $2.00-$3.00.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/08/what-a-1925-ad-for
-i-the-great-gatsby-i-tells-us-about-book-prices/261390/
https://vintagedancer.com/1920s/1920s-mens-shirts-and-collars-history/
"Parity" is an egregious concept, most notably used in the US in
discussions of setting the level of agricultural subsidies.
The farmers always wanted the target price set at a parity that
would emulate the years just before the US's entry into The
Great War, when food prices were high, due to European powers using
much of their farmland to plant dead bodies, not crops.
"Purchasing power parity" is a good tool for comparing cost of
living, but secular increases or decreases in prices due to
changes in supply and demand, often driven by technological
changes have to be taken into account when making comparisons
over time. Price is, after all, not a function of inputs, but
of the aggregate subjective decision-making of all actors in
the market. Prices can't be kept artificially high by force of
will.
Tell that to deBeers.
Or Comcast, or most ISPs in the US.

Markets work when there are a multitude of suppliers and
consumers, and little friction in consumer switching suppliers.

When one side has an effective monopoly, or can make switching
suppliers costly, the 'free market' isn't.

pt
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
2018-07-21 03:08:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by Kevrob
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 07:41:56 -0500, David DeLaney
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Moriarty
Given a book that sells for $20 (mmpb) or $12 (kindle edition),
I do not know how things work in Australia, but I do know U.S.
and British publishing customs. A mass-market paperback will
normally earn a royalty equivalent to 6%, 8%, or 10% of cover
price; if this is
I assume that's Australian dollars, not U.S. It's about $14.75 U.S.
Still steep but not ridiculous.
Spoken like a true author.
:-)
"The price of a new hardcover novel should approximate
the price of a fine men's dress shirt."
Late bookseller A. David Schwartz, possibly quoting
his father, Harry W. Schwartz.
I believe the idea was to maintain price parity from the
days when a new hardback cost $2.00-$3.00.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/08/what-a-1925-ad-for
-i-the-great-gatsby-i-tells-us-about-book-prices/261390/
https://vintagedancer.com/1920s/1920s-mens-shirts-and-collars-history/
"Parity" is an egregious concept, most notably used in the US in
discussions of setting the level of agricultural subsidies.
The farmers always wanted the target price set at a parity that
would emulate the years just before the US's entry into The
Great War, when food prices were high, due to European powers using
much of their farmland to plant dead bodies, not crops.
"Purchasing power parity" is a good tool for comparing cost of
living, but secular increases or decreases in prices due to
changes in supply and demand, often driven by technological
changes have to be taken into account when making comparisons
over time. Price is, after all, not a function of inputs, but
of the aggregate subjective decision-making of all actors in
the market. Prices can't be kept artificially high by force of
will.
Tell that to deBeers.
Or Comcast, or most ISPs in the US.
Markets work when there are a multitude of suppliers and
consumers, and little friction in consumer switching suppliers.
When one side has an effective monopoly, or can make switching
suppliers costly, the 'free market' isn't.
pt
We are currently engaged in an experiment to determine whether
publishers have a monopoly. The answer so far seems to be 'no'.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Greg Goss
2018-07-22 01:56:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Cryptoengineer
When one side has an effective monopoly, or can make switching
suppliers costly, the 'free market' isn't.
We are currently engaged in an experiment to determine whether
publishers have a monopoly. The answer so far seems to be 'no'.
I'm not sure that a monopoly retailer is much better.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Kevrob
2018-07-21 03:15:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by Kevrob
"Purchasing power parity" is a good tool for comparing cost of
living, but secular increases or decreases in prices due to
changes in supply and demand, often driven by technological
changes have to be taken into account when making comparisons
over time. Price is, after all, not a function of inputs, but
of the aggregate subjective decision-making of all actors in
the market. Prices can't be kept artificially high by force of
will.
Tell that to deBeers.
DeBeers market share has dropped to from 90% to ~35%.

http://www.kitco.com/ind/Zimnisky/2013-06-06-A-Diamond-Market-No-Longer-Controlled-By-De-Beers.html

Cartels don't last forever. They have defections, new players
who won't join, members cheat on their quota, etc. Remember when
OPEC cornered the market on crude oil? Of course not, because it
never happened.
Post by Cryptoengineer
Or Comcast, or most ISPs in the US.
Gee, my landlord got sick of dealing with Comcast. He fired
their ass. He installed DirectTV, and cut a deal with me
that reduced my rent by enough each month so I could bring in
the successor to the local Baby Bell for internet and WiFi, and
add a DSL phone line, to boot. Hulu, Netflix, "cord cutting" -
have you heard of any of this?

Local govt is much to blame for lack of choice in
TV and internet transmission by wire. see Wired:

https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/
Post by Cryptoengineer
Markets work when there are a multitude of suppliers and
consumers, and little friction in consumer switching suppliers.
When one side has an effective monopoly, or can make switching
suppliers costly, the 'free market' isn't.
"Effective monopoly" is a term of art. I'm not a fan of anti-trust
laws, but the feds might have been wise to use anti-trust against the
localities writing regulations back in the 70s and 80s that would
frequently mean only a favored bidder could win a cable franchise.
Just the idea of exclusive franchises.....

Kevin R
J. Clarke
2018-07-21 13:13:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by Kevrob
"Purchasing power parity" is a good tool for comparing cost of
living, but secular increases or decreases in prices due to
changes in supply and demand, often driven by technological
changes have to be taken into account when making comparisons
over time. Price is, after all, not a function of inputs, but
of the aggregate subjective decision-making of all actors in
the market. Prices can't be kept artificially high by force of
will.
Tell that to deBeers.
DeBeers market share has dropped to from 90% to ~35%.
http://www.kitco.com/ind/Zimnisky/2013-06-06-A-Diamond-Market-No-Longer-Controlled-By-De-Beers.html
Cartels don't last forever. They have defections, new players
who won't join, members cheat on their quota, etc. Remember when
OPEC cornered the market on crude oil? Of course not, because it
never happened.
Post by Cryptoengineer
Or Comcast, or most ISPs in the US.
Gee, my landlord got sick of dealing with Comcast. He fired
their ass. He installed DirectTV, and cut a deal with me
that reduced my rent by enough each month so I could bring in
the successor to the local Baby Bell for internet and WiFi, and
add a DSL phone line, to boot. Hulu, Netflix, "cord cutting" -
have you heard of any of this?
To cord-cut you need adequate Internet performance, and around here
you get that from Cox. There is a competitor, Frontier, that I got
tired of dealing with.

In some areas the phone company is still real competition for the
cable company, but this is not one of them.
Post by Kevrob
Local govt is much to blame for lack of choice in
https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/
Post by Cryptoengineer
Markets work when there are a multitude of suppliers and
consumers, and little friction in consumer switching suppliers.
When one side has an effective monopoly, or can make switching
suppliers costly, the 'free market' isn't.
"Effective monopoly" is a term of art. I'm not a fan of anti-trust
laws, but the feds might have been wise to use anti-trust against the
localities writing regulations back in the 70s and 80s that would
frequently mean only a favored bidder could win a cable franchise.
Just the idea of exclusive franchises.....
The problem is that there is only so much right-of-way available. How
many cables can you hang from a pole?
-dsr-
2018-07-21 16:22:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
The problem is that there is only so much right-of-way available. How
many cables can you hang from a pole?
On the order of a dozen. A dozen would probably be enough competition, too,
except that there are basically no places in the USA which have that right now.
(I live in a suburb of Boston that has three gigabit-to-the-house ISPs available,
plus another 2-3 possibles. Three is not enough to make a competitive market.
I think 7 is the magic number.)

However, if your local authority hung fiber everywhere and allowed anybody who
wanted to offer ISP services to buy bandwidth on it, you could have a ridiculously
large number of ISPs with their own virtual "cables".

There's a fair amount of SF that posits a monopoly situation for some critical
infrastructure, which might be part of the background or actively involved in
the plot. Dune has monopolies on space travel, the best longevity drug, and many
smaller lines (Caladanian whale-fur comes to mind.) Walter Jon Williams' Metropolitan
and City on Fire focus on a monopoly of magic-plumbing-power.

-dsr-
J. Clarke
2018-07-22 00:43:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 21 Jul 2018 12:22:53 -0400, -dsr-
Post by -dsr-
Post by J. Clarke
The problem is that there is only so much right-of-way available. How
many cables can you hang from a pole?
On the order of a dozen.
Is there a standard for that or is that your opinion? And does that
include the power lines?
Post by -dsr-
A dozen would probably be enough competition, too,
except that there are basically no places in the USA which have that right now.
(I live in a suburb of Boston that has three gigabit-to-the-house ISPs available,
plus another 2-3 possibles. Three is not enough to make a competitive market.
I think 7 is the magic number.)
However, if your local authority hung fiber everywhere and allowed anybody who
wanted to offer ISP services to buy bandwidth on it, you could have a ridiculously
large number of ISPs with their own virtual "cables".
At which point "your local authority" has the monopoly.
Post by -dsr-
There's a fair amount of SF that posits a monopoly situation for some critical
infrastructure, which might be part of the background or actively involved in
the plot. Dune has monopolies on space travel, the best longevity drug, and many
smaller lines (Caladanian whale-fur comes to mind.) Walter Jon Williams' Metropolitan
and City on Fire focus on a monopoly of magic-plumbing-power.
-dsr-
Juho Julkunen
2018-07-22 01:51:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@4ax.com>, jclarke.873638
@gmail.com says...
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 21 Jul 2018 12:22:53 -0400, -dsr-
Post by -dsr-
However, if your local authority hung fiber everywhere and allowed anybody who
wanted to offer ISP services to buy bandwidth on it, you could have a ridiculously
large number of ISPs with their own virtual "cables".
At which point "your local authority" has the monopoly.
That is kinda what the authority is for.
--
Juho Julkunen
J. Clarke
2018-07-22 03:17:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 04:51:52 +0300, Juho Julkunen
Post by Juho Julkunen
@gmail.com says...
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 21 Jul 2018 12:22:53 -0400, -dsr-
Post by -dsr-
However, if your local authority hung fiber everywhere and allowed anybody who
wanted to offer ISP services to buy bandwidth on it, you could have a ridiculously
large number of ISPs with their own virtual "cables".
At which point "your local authority" has the monopoly.
That is kinda what the authority is for.
So how does that help? A monopoly is a monopoly. If you're going to
have such a monopoly then what is the benefit of having someone other
than the monopoly buy services from the monopoly and resell them?

If the monopoly can stay in business for x dollars then how does
having a horde of businesses add profit on top of that reduce costs?
Cryptoengineer
2018-07-22 04:45:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 04:51:52 +0300, Juho Julkunen
Post by Juho Julkunen
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 21 Jul 2018 12:22:53 -0400, -dsr-
Post by -dsr-
However, if your local authority hung fiber everywhere and allowed
anybody who wanted to offer ISP services to buy bandwidth on it,
you could have a ridiculously large number of ISPs with their own
virtual "cables".
At which point "your local authority" has the monopoly.
That is kinda what the authority is for.
So how does that help? A monopoly is a monopoly. If you're going to
have such a monopoly then what is the benefit of having someone other
than the monopoly buy services from the monopoly and resell them?
If the monopoly can stay in business for x dollars then how does
having a horde of businesses add profit on top of that reduce costs?
I love it when people say 'that can't possibly work', when if they'd
look, there are already millions enjoying exactly that.

Here's a 2014 article from Motley Fool (hardly a lefty site - they're
investment advisors), detailing how internet works in Sweden.

TLDNR: $40/month for 100/100, $70 for gigabit. Municipal networks for
last mile.

https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/10/07/how-come-my-isp-wont-
increase-internet-speed-and-l.aspx

pt
J. Clarke
2018-07-22 11:37:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 21 Jul 2018 23:45:11 -0500, Cryptoengineer
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 04:51:52 +0300, Juho Julkunen
Post by Juho Julkunen
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 21 Jul 2018 12:22:53 -0400, -dsr-
Post by -dsr-
However, if your local authority hung fiber everywhere and allowed
anybody who wanted to offer ISP services to buy bandwidth on it,
you could have a ridiculously large number of ISPs with their own
virtual "cables".
At which point "your local authority" has the monopoly.
That is kinda what the authority is for.
So how does that help? A monopoly is a monopoly. If you're going to
have such a monopoly then what is the benefit of having someone other
than the monopoly buy services from the monopoly and resell them?
If the monopoly can stay in business for x dollars then how does
having a horde of businesses add profit on top of that reduce costs?
I love it when people say 'that can't possibly work', when if they'd
look, there are already millions enjoying exactly that.
Here's a 2014 article from Motley Fool (hardly a lefty site - they're
investment advisors), detailing how internet works in Sweden.
TLDNR: $40/month for 100/100, $70 for gigabit. Municipal networks for
last mile.
https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/10/07/how-come-my-isp-wont-
increase-internet-speed-and-l.aspx
Who said that it "can't possibly work"? Nazi Germany _worked_ until
they picked a fight with the big kids and got their butts kicked. That
doesn't mean that it's a model that anybody ought to emulate.

The question is whether that $40 Internet in Sweden would be $35 if
they eliminated the tier of businesses layered on top of the
government-provided infrastructure. There's also the question of how
much of the network is subsidized by taxes. Does one pay $40 a month
to the business and another $300 to the government in taxes to support
the whole mess?
-dsr-
2018-07-22 17:48:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 21 Jul 2018 12:22:53 -0400, -dsr-
Post by -dsr-
Post by J. Clarke
The problem is that there is only so much right-of-way available. How
many cables can you hang from a pole?
On the order of a dozen.
Is there a standard for that or is that your opinion? And does that
include the power lines?
NESC and ANSI each have standards. Your state or province (usually)
will have adopted one of those, and depending on climate will have a
range of build-standards. That gives you allowable loads, and from
that you can see how many cross-beams are allowed and what the required
spacing is.

The rule is that the higher the voltage, the higher the wire. Fiber is
ultra-low voltage (either zero or coaxial low voltage for inline amplifiers).
Fiber is also lower linear weight than copper, so if you have zero voltage
lines you can get quite a few of them together on a lower cross-beam.

On the order of a dozen.
Post by J. Clarke
At which point "your local authority" has the monopoly.
For fiber, and maintenance thereof, but not of any signals crossing it.
This is a very efficient and equitable way of doing it, and promotes
competition among ISPs.

-dsr-
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-07-23 15:47:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by -dsr-
Post by J. Clarke
The problem is that there is only so much right-of-way
available. How many cables can you hang from a pole?
On the order of a dozen. A dozen would probably be enough
competition, too, except that there are basically no places in
the USA which have that right now. (I live in a suburb of Boston
that has three gigabit-to-the-house ISPs available, plus another
2-3 possibles. Three is not enough to make a competitive market.
I think 7 is the magic number.)
I could easily find that many ISPs here in Orange County,
California (one of the most wired places in the world).

However, ultimately, the wires (or fiber cables) in the ground
still belong to either the Baby Bell or the cable company. In
California, at least, doing business with a non-Baby Bell has its
advantages, though, because there are laws regarding access to
competing phone companies, and the PUC actively hates the Baby
Bells, so other phaone companies have a lot of pull when they have
legitimate complaints.
Post by -dsr-
However, if your local authority hung fiber everywhere and
allowed anybody who wanted to offer ISP services to buy
bandwidth on it, you could have a ridiculously large number of
ISPs with their own virtual "cables".
I wouldn't say we have a *ridiculously* large number of ISPs, but
we do have quite a few.

(BTW, it's always been possible to lease dry copper from your local
Baby Bell, or Ma Bell before that, and do whatever the hell you
want, including resell it as an ISP. but that requires a lot of
technical expertise, and hasn't always been cheap.)
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-07-23 15:42:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 20 Jul 2018 20:15:32 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob
On Friday, July 20, 2018 at 10:25:05 PM UTC-4, Cryptoengineer
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by Kevrob
"Purchasing power parity" is a good tool for comparing cost
of living, but secular increases or decreases in prices due
to changes in supply and demand, often driven by
technological changes have to be taken into account when
making comparisons over time. Price is, after all, not a
function of inputs, but of the aggregate subjective
decision-making of all actors in the market. Prices can't be
kept artificially high by force of will.
Tell that to deBeers.
DeBeers market share has dropped to from 90% to ~35%.
http://www.kitco.com/ind/Zimnisky/2013-06-06-A-Diamond-Market-No-
Longer-Controlled-By-De-Beers.html
Cartels don't last forever. They have defections, new players
who won't join, members cheat on their quota, etc. Remember
when OPEC cornered the market on crude oil? Of course not,
because it never happened.
Post by Cryptoengineer
Or Comcast, or most ISPs in the US.
Gee, my landlord got sick of dealing with Comcast. He fired
their ass. He installed DirectTV, and cut a deal with me
that reduced my rent by enough each month so I could bring in
the successor to the local Baby Bell for internet and WiFi, and
add a DSL phone line, to boot. Hulu, Netflix, "cord cutting" -
have you heard of any of this?
To cord-cut you need adequate Internet performance, and around
here you get that from Cox. There is a competitor, Frontier,
that I got tired of dealing with.
Frontier is the worst phone company in the world.
In some areas the phone company is still real competition for
the cable company, but this is not one of them.
And they bought Verizon's land line business.

I have tales.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Juho Julkunen
2018-07-21 12:24:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by Kevrob
the market. Prices can't be kept artificially high by force of
will.
Tell that to deBeers.
Or Comcast, or most ISPs in the US.
The latter at least isn't by force of will as much as by force of law.
The US is remarkably hostile to the idea of free markets.
Post by Cryptoengineer
Markets work when there are a multitude of suppliers and
consumers, and little friction in consumer switching suppliers.
When one side has an effective monopoly, or can make switching
suppliers costly, the 'free market' isn't.
Quite, and usually the monopoly is the result of government action.

Incidentally, I switched my ISP twice in the last year.
--
Juho Julkunen
Garrett Wollman
2018-07-21 20:57:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Juho Julkunen
Post by Cryptoengineer
Tell that to deBeers.
Or Comcast, or most ISPs in the US.
The latter at least isn't by force of will as much as by force of law.
Not particularly. (Unless for "by force of law" you mean that
potential competitors aren't allowed to use the law to force incumbent
communications providers to carry competing services on their wires.)
Exclusive local franchise agreements have been forbidden since the
Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Potential competitors have always had to deal with the fact that there
is no non-monopoly regime in which wiring vast acres of underpopulated
low-density suburbia makes the slightest economic sense, even in
states with statewide franchising.[1] Thus, competition (even of the
oligopoly sort) exists only in those places where population density
looked like it might be high enough to justify the cost of an
overbuild, which does not serve much of the country either by land
area or population. Essentially all of the overbuilds have ceased
now, and one of the major overbuilders has already been through
bankruptcy.

-GAWollman

[1] In large parts of the US, even *with* a monopoly it still doesn't
make economic sense, which is why there are still huge urban-rural
cross-subsidies just to ensure that these places have any kind of
service at all.
--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
***@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)
Juho Julkunen
2018-07-22 02:12:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Garrett Wollman
Post by Juho Julkunen
Post by Cryptoengineer
Tell that to deBeers.
Or Comcast, or most ISPs in the US.
The latter at least isn't by force of will as much as by force of law.
Not particularly. (Unless for "by force of law" you mean that
potential competitors aren't allowed to use the law to force incumbent
communications providers to carry competing services on their wires.)
Exclusive local franchise agreements have been forbidden since the
Telecommunications Act of 1996.
No, what I meant was that I was deplorably confused in my chronology.
I'd forgotten that you'd done away with mandated monopolies, and only
have to deal with the gentlemen's agreement between the big players to
not compete. Which isn't a cartel, of course, as that would be illegal.
Post by Garrett Wollman
Potential competitors have always had to deal with the fact that there
is no non-monopoly regime in which wiring vast acres of underpopulated
low-density suburbia makes the slightest economic sense, even in
states with statewide franchising.[1] Thus, competition (even of the
oligopoly sort) exists only in those places where population density
looked like it might be high enough to justify the cost of an
overbuild, which does not serve much of the country either by land
area or population. Essentially all of the overbuilds have ceased
now, and one of the major overbuilders has already been through
bankruptcy.
-GAWollman
[1] In large parts of the US, even *with* a monopoly it still doesn't
make economic sense, which is why there are still huge urban-rural
cross-subsidies just to ensure that these places have any kind of
service at all.
I'm not sure why you say "even with". Monopolies don't have much
incentive to stretch themselves. Why would they? They don't have
competition.

Also, why would the vast acres need to be wired? Wireless seems like a
more sensible solution for low density areas.
--
Juho Julkunen
J. Clarke
2018-07-22 03:18:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 05:12:52 +0300, Juho Julkunen
Post by Juho Julkunen
Post by Garrett Wollman
Post by Juho Julkunen
Post by Cryptoengineer
Tell that to deBeers.
Or Comcast, or most ISPs in the US.
The latter at least isn't by force of will as much as by force of law.
Not particularly. (Unless for "by force of law" you mean that
potential competitors aren't allowed to use the law to force incumbent
communications providers to carry competing services on their wires.)
Exclusive local franchise agreements have been forbidden since the
Telecommunications Act of 1996.
No, what I meant was that I was deplorably confused in my chronology.
I'd forgotten that you'd done away with mandated monopolies, and only
have to deal with the gentlemen's agreement between the big players to
not compete. Which isn't a cartel, of course, as that would be illegal.
Post by Garrett Wollman
Potential competitors have always had to deal with the fact that there
is no non-monopoly regime in which wiring vast acres of underpopulated
low-density suburbia makes the slightest economic sense, even in
states with statewide franchising.[1] Thus, competition (even of the
oligopoly sort) exists only in those places where population density
looked like it might be high enough to justify the cost of an
overbuild, which does not serve much of the country either by land
area or population. Essentially all of the overbuilds have ceased
now, and one of the major overbuilders has already been through
bankruptcy.
-GAWollman
[1] In large parts of the US, even *with* a monopoly it still doesn't
make economic sense, which is why there are still huge urban-rural
cross-subsidies just to ensure that these places have any kind of
service at all.
I'm not sure why you say "even with". Monopolies don't have much
incentive to stretch themselves. Why would they? They don't have
competition.
Also, why would the vast acres need to be wired? Wireless seems like a
more sensible solution for low density areas.
Do you have technology that will reliably provide 100+ Mb/sec
wirelessly over wide areas for less cost than cable or fiber?
Juho Julkunen
2018-07-22 03:51:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@4ax.com>, jclarke.873638
@gmail.com says...
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 05:12:52 +0300, Juho Julkunen
Post by Juho Julkunen
Also, why would the vast acres need to be wired? Wireless seems like a
more sensible solution for low density areas.
Do you have technology that will reliably provide 100+ Mb/sec
wirelessly over wide areas for less cost than cable or fiber?
Sorry, I can't even see that goalpost anymore.
--
Juho Julkunen
Greg Goss
2018-07-22 04:38:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Juho Julkunen
@gmail.com says...
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 05:12:52 +0300, Juho Julkunen
Post by Juho Julkunen
Also, why would the vast acres need to be wired? Wireless seems like a
more sensible solution for low density areas.
Do you have technology that will reliably provide 100+ Mb/sec
wirelessly over wide areas for less cost than cable or fiber?
Sorry, I can't even see that goalpost anymore.
My employer (I worked for three months as a bookkeeper in a rural home
basement) had a personal microwave link. She called it "satellite",
but the dish pointed sideways.

My sister had the same thing for a while, but upgraded to ADSL when
her husband negotiated a telco closet at the local (kind'a) volunteer
fire hall. In her case, the dish was on a fencepost out by the road,
which was considerably higher and thus a better sight line to the
provider. I may be rememberiing wrong, but I think that they provided
power-over-ethernet to the hardware at the dish.

So I'm not sure of the bandwidth, but "wide areas" is covered.
(quick google. 10 MPBS)
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
J. Clarke
2018-07-22 11:49:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Juho Julkunen
@gmail.com says...
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 05:12:52 +0300, Juho Julkunen
Post by Juho Julkunen
Also, why would the vast acres need to be wired? Wireless seems like a
more sensible solution for low density areas.
Do you have technology that will reliably provide 100+ Mb/sec
wirelessly over wide areas for less cost than cable or fiber?
Sorry, I can't even see that goalpost anymore.
My employer (I worked for three months as a bookkeeper in a rural home
basement) had a personal microwave link. She called it "satellite",
but the dish pointed sideways.
My sister had the same thing for a while, but upgraded to ADSL when
her husband negotiated a telco closet at the local (kind'a) volunteer
fire hall. In her case, the dish was on a fencepost out by the road,
which was considerably higher and thus a better sight line to the
provider. I may be rememberiing wrong, but I think that they provided
power-over-ethernet to the hardware at the dish.
So I'm not sure of the bandwidth, but "wide areas" is covered.
(quick google. 10 MPBS)
How much did it _cost_? Hard wired 10 mb/sec Internet at my location
is 30 a month from Cox or Frontier.

And how many residences can be handled by that specific system? The
fact that it can be set up for ONE person doesn't mean that it is
equally doable for a MILLION people.
Jay E. Morris
2018-07-22 20:24:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Juho Julkunen
@gmail.com says...
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 05:12:52 +0300, Juho Julkunen
Post by Juho Julkunen
Also, why would the vast acres need to be wired? Wireless seems like a
more sensible solution for low density areas.
Do you have technology that will reliably provide 100+ Mb/sec
wirelessly over wide areas for less cost than cable or fiber?
Sorry, I can't even see that goalpost anymore.
My employer (I worked for three months as a bookkeeper in a rural home
basement) had a personal microwave link. She called it "satellite",
but the dish pointed sideways.
My sister had the same thing for a while, but upgraded to ADSL when
her husband negotiated a telco closet at the local (kind'a) volunteer
fire hall. In her case, the dish was on a fencepost out by the road,
which was considerably higher and thus a better sight line to the
provider. I may be rememberiing wrong, but I think that they provided
power-over-ethernet to the hardware at the dish.
So I'm not sure of the bandwidth, but "wide areas" is covered.
(quick google. 10 MPBS)
How much did it _cost_? Hard wired 10 mb/sec Internet at my location
is 30 a month from Cox or Frontier.
And how many residences can be handled by that specific system? The
fact that it can be set up for ONE person doesn't mean that it is
equally doable for a MILLION people.
Our local electrical coop provides internet service, both wireless and
fiber (if its in your local). Wireless prices are:
1 Mbps $35
3 Mbps $50
8 Mbps $60
16 Mbps $80
25 Mbps $100

https://www.gvec.net/

IIRC the last general meeting correctly there's about 10,000 on
wireless. Since wireless is for those that cable/fiber can't reach I
don't expect it to be exceptionally high.
J. Clarke
2018-07-22 22:09:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 15:24:29 -0500, "Jay E. Morris"
Post by Jay E. Morris
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Juho Julkunen
@gmail.com says...
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 05:12:52 +0300, Juho Julkunen
Post by Juho Julkunen
Also, why would the vast acres need to be wired? Wireless seems like a
more sensible solution for low density areas.
Do you have technology that will reliably provide 100+ Mb/sec
wirelessly over wide areas for less cost than cable or fiber?
Sorry, I can't even see that goalpost anymore.
My employer (I worked for three months as a bookkeeper in a rural home
basement) had a personal microwave link. She called it "satellite",
but the dish pointed sideways.
My sister had the same thing for a while, but upgraded to ADSL when
her husband negotiated a telco closet at the local (kind'a) volunteer
fire hall. In her case, the dish was on a fencepost out by the road,
which was considerably higher and thus a better sight line to the
provider. I may be rememberiing wrong, but I think that they provided
power-over-ethernet to the hardware at the dish.
So I'm not sure of the bandwidth, but "wide areas" is covered.
(quick google. 10 MPBS)
How much did it _cost_? Hard wired 10 mb/sec Internet at my location
is 30 a month from Cox or Frontier.
And how many residences can be handled by that specific system? The
fact that it can be set up for ONE person doesn't mean that it is
equally doable for a MILLION people.
Our local electrical coop provides internet service, both wireless and
1 Mbps $35
3 Mbps $50
8 Mbps $60
16 Mbps $80
25 Mbps $100
https://www.gvec.net/
IIRC the last general meeting correctly there's about 10,000 on
wireless. Since wireless is for those that cable/fiber can't reach I
don't expect it to be exceptionally high.
25 Mbps for 100 bucks is no bargain and by today's standards it's
marginal performance.
Jay E. Morris
2018-07-23 00:26:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 15:24:29 -0500, "Jay E. Morris"
Post by Jay E. Morris
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Juho Julkunen
@gmail.com says...
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 05:12:52 +0300, Juho Julkunen
Post by Juho Julkunen
Also, why would the vast acres need to be wired? Wireless seems like a
more sensible solution for low density areas.
Do you have technology that will reliably provide 100+ Mb/sec
wirelessly over wide areas for less cost than cable or fiber?
Sorry, I can't even see that goalpost anymore.
My employer (I worked for three months as a bookkeeper in a rural home
basement) had a personal microwave link. She called it "satellite",
but the dish pointed sideways.
My sister had the same thing for a while, but upgraded to ADSL when
her husband negotiated a telco closet at the local (kind'a) volunteer
fire hall. In her case, the dish was on a fencepost out by the road,
which was considerably higher and thus a better sight line to the
provider. I may be rememberiing wrong, but I think that they provided
power-over-ethernet to the hardware at the dish.
So I'm not sure of the bandwidth, but "wide areas" is covered.
(quick google. 10 MPBS)
How much did it _cost_? Hard wired 10 mb/sec Internet at my location
is 30 a month from Cox or Frontier.
And how many residences can be handled by that specific system? The
fact that it can be set up for ONE person doesn't mean that it is
equally doable for a MILLION people.
Our local electrical coop provides internet service, both wireless and
1 Mbps $35
3 Mbps $50
8 Mbps $60
16 Mbps $80
25 Mbps $100
https://www.gvec.net/
IIRC the last general meeting correctly there's about 10,000 on
wireless. Since wireless is for those that cable/fiber can't reach I
don't expect it to be exceptionally high.
25 Mbps for 100 bucks is no bargain and by today's standards it's
marginal performance.
Not disputing that but if cable isn't laid and you're too far for DSL...
J. Clarke
2018-07-23 01:18:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 19:26:54 -0500, "Jay E. Morris"
Post by Jay E. Morris
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 15:24:29 -0500, "Jay E. Morris"
Post by Jay E. Morris
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Juho Julkunen
@gmail.com says...
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 05:12:52 +0300, Juho Julkunen
Post by Juho Julkunen
Also, why would the vast acres need to be wired? Wireless seems like a
more sensible solution for low density areas.
Do you have technology that will reliably provide 100+ Mb/sec
wirelessly over wide areas for less cost than cable or fiber?
Sorry, I can't even see that goalpost anymore.
My employer (I worked for three months as a bookkeeper in a rural home
basement) had a personal microwave link. She called it "satellite",
but the dish pointed sideways.
My sister had the same thing for a while, but upgraded to ADSL when
her husband negotiated a telco closet at the local (kind'a) volunteer
fire hall. In her case, the dish was on a fencepost out by the road,
which was considerably higher and thus a better sight line to the
provider. I may be rememberiing wrong, but I think that they provided
power-over-ethernet to the hardware at the dish.
So I'm not sure of the bandwidth, but "wide areas" is covered.
(quick google. 10 MPBS)
How much did it _cost_? Hard wired 10 mb/sec Internet at my location
is 30 a month from Cox or Frontier.
And how many residences can be handled by that specific system? The
fact that it can be set up for ONE person doesn't mean that it is
equally doable for a MILLION people.
Our local electrical coop provides internet service, both wireless and
1 Mbps $35
3 Mbps $50
8 Mbps $60
16 Mbps $80
25 Mbps $100
https://www.gvec.net/
IIRC the last general meeting correctly there's about 10,000 on
wireless. Since wireless is for those that cable/fiber can't reach I
don't expect it to be exceptionally high.
25 Mbps for 100 bucks is no bargain and by today's standards it's
marginal performance.
Not disputing that but if cable isn't laid and you're too far for DSL..
However this is _not_ the way to bring Internet competition to
mainstream America, which is the topic that was under discussion.
Greg Goss
2018-07-23 02:42:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Greg Goss
My employer (I worked for three months as a bookkeeper in a rural home
basement) had a personal microwave link. She called it "satellite",
but the dish pointed sideways.
My sister had the same thing for a while, but upgraded to ADSL when
her husband negotiated a telco closet at the local (kind'a) volunteer
fire hall. In her case, the dish was on a fencepost out by the road,
which was considerably higher and thus a better sight line to the
provider. I may be rememberiing wrong, but I think that they provided
power-over-ethernet to the hardware at the dish.
So I'm not sure of the bandwidth, but "wide areas" is covered.
(quick google. 10 MPBS)
How much did it _cost_? Hard wired 10 mb/sec Internet at my location
is 30 a month from Cox or Frontier.
We were talking about vast acres. How much does it cost to get the
hard wires to a location? My sister paid something like $7K to get
power and phone from the road to her house, and ADSL wasn't available
till her husband negotiated a telco closet at the volunteer fire hall
three miles away. She's got some kind of optical fiber feed now, but
I don't understand the economics that managed to get that to her.
Post by J. Clarke
And how many residences can be handled by that specific system? The
fact that it can be set up for ONE person doesn't mean that it is
equally doable for a MILLION people.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
J. Clarke
2018-07-23 03:12:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greg Goss
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Greg Goss
My employer (I worked for three months as a bookkeeper in a rural home
basement) had a personal microwave link. She called it "satellite",
but the dish pointed sideways.
My sister had the same thing for a while, but upgraded to ADSL when
her husband negotiated a telco closet at the local (kind'a) volunteer
fire hall. In her case, the dish was on a fencepost out by the road,
which was considerably higher and thus a better sight line to the
provider. I may be rememberiing wrong, but I think that they provided
power-over-ethernet to the hardware at the dish.
So I'm not sure of the bandwidth, but "wide areas" is covered.
(quick google. 10 MPBS)
How much did it _cost_? Hard wired 10 mb/sec Internet at my location
is 30 a month from Cox or Frontier.
We were talking about vast acres. How much does it cost to get the
hard wires to a location? My sister paid something like $7K to get
power and phone from the road to her house, and ADSL wasn't available
till her husband negotiated a telco closet at the volunteer fire hall
three miles away. She's got some kind of optical fiber feed now, but
I don't understand the economics that managed to get that to her.
The discussion was of Internet competition in suburban America. Your
sister is not exemplary of suburban America. The argument that was
presented was that if the mean old government wasn't in cahoots with
the phone company there would be a dozen or so internet providers
vying for your business. So do you really think that there would be a
dozen companies all champing at the bit to run fiber to your sister?

She's in an isolated location, she found a provider that would deliver
service for a premium price. So, in your considered opinion, would
deregulating the provision of internet service have resulted in her
having more options at that location?

If not then you're going off on an irrelevant tangent. And don't say
"thread drift".
Post by Greg Goss
Post by J. Clarke
And how many residences can be handled by that specific system? The
fact that it can be set up for ONE person doesn't mean that it is
equally doable for a MILLION people.
Greg Goss
2018-07-23 15:03:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
If not then you're going off on an irrelevant tangent. And don't say
"thread drift".
Drift ... in a thread.

Whatever happened to the blip and solar nearly-glider based internet
systems that Google and Facebook were promoting a half-decade or so
back? (aimed supposedly at Africa and Asia - I think that they were
expecting US gov't to wire up even the rural areas)
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Juho Julkunen
2018-07-23 15:19:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greg Goss
Post by J. Clarke
If not then you're going off on an irrelevant tangent. And don't say
"thread drift".
Drift ... in a thread.
As should be obvious from the subject line, this thread is specifically
and exclusively for discussing the potential impact of deregulation on
the provision of internet services. Heed the thread sheriff.
--
Juho Julkunen
Robert Carnegie
2018-07-24 20:38:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greg Goss
Post by J. Clarke
If not then you're going off on an irrelevant tangent. And don't say
"thread drift".
Drift ... in a thread.
Whatever happened to the blip and solar nearly-glider based internet
systems that Google and Facebook were promoting a half-decade or so
back? (aimed supposedly at Africa and Asia - I think that they were
expecting US gov't to wire up even the rural areas)
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Telkom Kenya has just signed up with the Google "Loon"
project, apparently. Here:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-44886803>
J. Clarke
2018-07-27 00:40:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greg Goss
Post by J. Clarke
If not then you're going off on an irrelevant tangent. And don't say
"thread drift".
Drift ... in a thread.
Whatever happened to the blip and solar nearly-glider based internet
systems that Google and Facebook were promoting a half-decade or so
back? (aimed supposedly at Africa and Asia - I think that they were
expecting US gov't to wire up even the rural areas)
The drone project is dead.
<https://money.cnn.com/2017/01/12/technology/google-drone-titan-shut-down/>

Supposedly some of the balloons were released over Puerto Rico and
over New Zealand but right now the only ones flying seem to be in the
western us.

The balloons supposedly all have callsigns that start with "HBAL" and
transponders that allow them to be tracked. To see the tracking go to
<https://www.flightradar24.com> and filter on "HBAL*".
Lawrence Watt-Evans
2018-07-23 15:31:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 23:12:21 -0400, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Greg Goss
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Greg Goss
My employer (I worked for three months as a bookkeeper in a rural home
basement) had a personal microwave link. She called it "satellite",
but the dish pointed sideways.
My sister had the same thing for a while, but upgraded to ADSL when
her husband negotiated a telco closet at the local (kind'a) volunteer
fire hall. In her case, the dish was on a fencepost out by the road,
which was considerably higher and thus a better sight line to the
provider. I may be rememberiing wrong, but I think that they provided
power-over-ethernet to the hardware at the dish.
So I'm not sure of the bandwidth, but "wide areas" is covered.
(quick google. 10 MPBS)
How much did it _cost_? Hard wired 10 mb/sec Internet at my location
is 30 a month from Cox or Frontier.
We were talking about vast acres. How much does it cost to get the
hard wires to a location? My sister paid something like $7K to get
power and phone from the road to her house, and ADSL wasn't available
till her husband negotiated a telco closet at the volunteer fire hall
three miles away. She's got some kind of optical fiber feed now, but
I don't understand the economics that managed to get that to her.
The discussion was of Internet competition in suburban America.
Was it? I thought it was of _rural_ America. I must have missed
something.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
My latest novel is Stone Unturned: A Legend of Ethshar.
See http://www.ethshar.com/StoneUnturned.shtml
Peter Trei
2018-07-23 15:50:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 23:12:21 -0400, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Greg Goss
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Greg Goss
My employer (I worked for three months as a bookkeeper in a rural home
basement) had a personal microwave link. She called it "satellite",
but the dish pointed sideways.
My sister had the same thing for a while, but upgraded to ADSL when
her husband negotiated a telco closet at the local (kind'a) volunteer
fire hall. In her case, the dish was on a fencepost out by the road,
which was considerably higher and thus a better sight line to the
provider. I may be rememberiing wrong, but I think that they provided
power-over-ethernet to the hardware at the dish.
So I'm not sure of the bandwidth, but "wide areas" is covered.
(quick google. 10 MPBS)
How much did it _cost_? Hard wired 10 mb/sec Internet at my location
is 30 a month from Cox or Frontier.
We were talking about vast acres. How much does it cost to get the
hard wires to a location? My sister paid something like $7K to get
power and phone from the road to her house, and ADSL wasn't available
till her husband negotiated a telco closet at the volunteer fire hall
three miles away. She's got some kind of optical fiber feed now, but
I don't understand the economics that managed to get that to her.
The discussion was of Internet competition in suburban America.
Was it? I thought it was of _rural_ America. I must have missed
something.
I haven't gone into the details for quite a few years, so I'm probably
mis-remembering this, but IIRC, there used to be a requirement that
cable/fiber/telco providers lease access/bandwidth to third party providers at
non-discriminatory rates. (perhaps it was only telcos)

This was dropped at some point, and the quasi-monopoly situation we suffer
from arose.

pt
Garrett Wollman
2018-07-23 17:44:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Trei
I haven't gone into the details for quite a few years, so I'm probably
mis-remembering this, but IIRC, there used to be a requirement that
cable/fiber/telco providers lease access/bandwidth to third party providers at
non-discriminatory rates. (perhaps it was only telcos)
It was only telcos, and the compulsory unbundling only applied to
certain kinds of services. Telco technicians responded by sabotaging
CLEC customer wiring.

Ultimately, the rates at which the unbundled local loop was offered to
competing carriers were too high for meaningful competition,
especially for residential customers, and most CLECs either went out
of business entirely or concentrated on more profitable markets like
business services. There was always an issue of whether digital
service superimposed on an analog phone line would be available as an
Unbunded Network Element in its own right; telcos wanted to force
potential competitors to install their own DSLAMs in every central
office, whereas CLEC ISPs wanted the telco to operate the DSLAMs and
just deliver customers' data connections over an ATM virtual circuit
to the ISP's facility. In the latter case, the competing providers
would automatically get the benefit of the telco's capital investment
in upgrading DSLAMs, so telcos worked to make the access fees as high
as they reasonably could.

There was a lot of gaming of the system as well, especially by big
companies that received incoming calls and didn't make any outgoing
calls, like call centers and ISPs. They found it advantageous to
become CLECs, which entitled them to settlements (payments from other
carriers for "delivering" incoming calls to their "customers").

In recent years, the two big telcos have been working to abandon as
much of their legacy copper networks as possible. In many places this
wiring is fifty to a hundred years old, poorly maintained, and poorly
documented. The FCC under the previous two administrations allowed
telcos to build fiber local loops without any unbundling, and by
abandoning the copper infrastructure they would no longer be required
to sell any services to their competitors. Verizon did this in my
city a couple of years ago.

-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
***@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)
David DeLaney
2018-07-23 23:58:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by J. Clarke
The discussion was of Internet competition in suburban America.
Was it? I thought it was of _rural_ America. I must have missed
something.
But what about arcological America?

Dave, are there no spacescrapers? no babel-towers?
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
J. Clarke
2018-07-27 00:42:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 11:31:38 -0400, Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 23:12:21 -0400, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Greg Goss
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Greg Goss
My employer (I worked for three months as a bookkeeper in a rural home
basement) had a personal microwave link. She called it "satellite",
but the dish pointed sideways.
My sister had the same thing for a while, but upgraded to ADSL when
her husband negotiated a telco closet at the local (kind'a) volunteer
fire hall. In her case, the dish was on a fencepost out by the road,
which was considerably higher and thus a better sight line to the
provider. I may be rememberiing wrong, but I think that they provided
power-over-ethernet to the hardware at the dish.
So I'm not sure of the bandwidth, but "wide areas" is covered.
(quick google. 10 MPBS)
How much did it _cost_? Hard wired 10 mb/sec Internet at my location
is 30 a month from Cox or Frontier.
We were talking about vast acres. How much does it cost to get the
hard wires to a location? My sister paid something like $7K to get
power and phone from the road to her house, and ADSL wasn't available
till her husband negotiated a telco closet at the volunteer fire hall
three miles away. She's got some kind of optical fiber feed now, but
I don't understand the economics that managed to get that to her.
The discussion was of Internet competition in suburban America.
Was it? I thought it was of _rural_ America. I must have missed
something.
If it's so remote that even getting internet to begin with is an issue
then competition is moot. If even the telephone company can't be
bothered then it's difficult to imagine a dozen different vendors
vying to string that wire. It's areas where there is significant
population density and internet service already in place that
competition or lack of same becomes an issue.
Peter Trei
2018-07-27 13:36:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 11:31:38 -0400, Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 23:12:21 -0400, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Greg Goss
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Greg Goss
My employer (I worked for three months as a bookkeeper in a rural home
basement) had a personal microwave link. She called it "satellite",
but the dish pointed sideways.
My sister had the same thing for a while, but upgraded to ADSL when
her husband negotiated a telco closet at the local (kind'a) volunteer
fire hall. In her case, the dish was on a fencepost out by the road,
which was considerably higher and thus a better sight line to the
provider. I may be rememberiing wrong, but I think that they provided
power-over-ethernet to the hardware at the dish.
So I'm not sure of the bandwidth, but "wide areas" is covered.
(quick google. 10 MPBS)
How much did it _cost_? Hard wired 10 mb/sec Internet at my location
is 30 a month from Cox or Frontier.
We were talking about vast acres. How much does it cost to get the
hard wires to a location? My sister paid something like $7K to get
power and phone from the road to her house, and ADSL wasn't available
till her husband negotiated a telco closet at the volunteer fire hall
three miles away. She's got some kind of optical fiber feed now, but
I don't understand the economics that managed to get that to her.
The discussion was of Internet competition in suburban America.
Was it? I thought it was of _rural_ America. I must have missed
something.
If it's so remote that even getting internet to begin with is an issue
then competition is moot. If even the telephone company can't be
bothered then it's difficult to imagine a dozen different vendors
vying to string that wire. It's areas where there is significant
population density and internet service already in place that
competition or lack of same becomes an issue.
This is a place where it can be argued the free market fails. Government
intervention, and regulated monopolies in return for universal service and
flat pricing allowed Rural Electrification and phone access.

I'm not a fan of government intervention, but in this case, it worked.

pt
Kevrob
2018-07-27 19:46:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Trei
This is a place where it can be argued the free market fails. Government
intervention, and regulated monopolies in return for universal service and
flat pricing allowed Rural Electrification and phone access.
I'm not a fan of government intervention, but in this case, it worked.
I talk to customers in rural areas of the country that aren't wired, who
use this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_Internet_access

of course, there are these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_Internet_access#Challenges_and_limitations

Or, there's this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_Internet_service_provider

See also:

https://broadbandnow.com/report/wisps-real-heroes-bridging-digital-divide/

Complaints I hear:

* It ain't cheap.

* Latency can suck. You may want to get real-time
info to follow the soybean futures market, but
Junior may not be the best online video game player
using a satellite portal. WISP line-of-sight connections
are supposed to be pretty good, or pretty good Real Soon
Now.

People who have used these in the real world should correct me, please.

Kevin R
J. Clarke
2018-07-22 11:39:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 06:51:29 +0300, Juho Julkunen
Post by Juho Julkunen
@gmail.com says...
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 05:12:52 +0300, Juho Julkunen
Post by Juho Julkunen
Also, why would the vast acres need to be wired? Wireless seems like a
more sensible solution for low density areas.
Do you have technology that will reliably provide 100+ Mb/sec
wirelessly over wide areas for less cost than cable or fiber?
Sorry, I can't even see that goalpost anymore.
The "goalpost" is to provide better Internet than we have now, cheaper
than we have now. Right now, today, I can pick up the phone and have
gigabit service installed this week for $120/month.

Can you beat that with any wireless technology currently commercially
available?
Juho Julkunen
2018-07-22 15:02:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@4ax.com>, jclarke.873638
@gmail.com says...
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 06:51:29 +0300, Juho Julkunen
Post by Juho Julkunen
@gmail.com says...
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 05:12:52 +0300, Juho Julkunen
Post by Juho Julkunen
Also, why would the vast acres need to be wired? Wireless seems like a
more sensible solution for low density areas.
Do you have technology that will reliably provide 100+ Mb/sec
wirelessly over wide areas for less cost than cable or fiber?
Sorry, I can't even see that goalpost anymore.
The "goalpost" is to provide better Internet than we have now, cheaper
than we have now. Right now, today, I can pick up the phone and have
gigabit service installed this week for $120/month.
Can you beat that with any wireless technology currently commercially
available?
I responded to a scenario where wiring remote, underpopulated areas was
supposedly economically unfeasible. Any service is better than none.
--
Juho Julkunen
J. Clarke
2018-07-22 17:26:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 18:02:20 +0300, Juho Julkunen
Post by Juho Julkunen
@gmail.com says...
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 06:51:29 +0300, Juho Julkunen
Post by Juho Julkunen
@gmail.com says...
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 05:12:52 +0300, Juho Julkunen
Post by Juho Julkunen
Also, why would the vast acres need to be wired? Wireless seems like a
more sensible solution for low density areas.
Do you have technology that will reliably provide 100+ Mb/sec
wirelessly over wide areas for less cost than cable or fiber?
Sorry, I can't even see that goalpost anymore.
The "goalpost" is to provide better Internet than we have now, cheaper
than we have now. Right now, today, I can pick up the phone and have
gigabit service installed this week for $120/month.
Can you beat that with any wireless technology currently commercially
available?
I responded to a scenario where wiring remote, underpopulated areas was
supposedly economically unfeasible. Any service is better than none.
In that case you're living in the past. I don't think that there are
any residences in the US in which phone service is not available--it
may not be active these days because some people are choosing to use
cellular as their only service but it's available. Wiring vast acres
is already a done deal. But it's wired for voice quality phone which
means DSL is the best available service.
Wolffan
2018-07-22 18:34:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 18:02:20 +0300, Juho Julkunen
Post by Juho Julkunen
@gmail.com says...
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 06:51:29 +0300, Juho Julkunen
Post by Juho Julkunen
@gmail.com says...
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 05:12:52 +0300, Juho Julkunen
Post by Juho Julkunen
Also, why would the vast acres need to be wired? Wireless seems like a
more sensible solution for low density areas.
Do you have technology that will reliably provide 100+ Mb/sec
wirelessly over wide areas for less cost than cable or fiber?
Sorry, I can't even see that goalpost anymore.
The "goalpost" is to provide better Internet than we have now, cheaper
than we have now. Right now, today, I can pick up the phone and have
gigabit service installed this week for $120/month.
Can you beat that with any wireless technology currently commercially
available?
I responded to a scenario where wiring remote, underpopulated areas was
supposedly economically unfeasible. Any service is better than none.
In that case you're living in the past. I don't think that there are
any residences in the US in which phone service is not available--it
may not be active these days because some people are choosing to use
cellular as their only service but it's available. Wiring vast acres
is already a done deal. But it's wired for voice quality phone which
means DSL is the best available service.
Not necessarily. Most varieties of DSL have range problems. The available
bandwidth degrades severely with distance from the DSLAM at the central
office. This is not a problem in a densely populated area, whee there will be
a central office, containing one or more DSLAMs, fairly close to the
population. It is a _significant_ problem in remote areas as specified above.
When I moved into my current residence, I was able to get 17 Mb/s worth of
ADSL2 connection. In the years since, the telco has both built a central
office closer to my house and moved to VDSL2, and I can now get 75 Mb/s.
(there would be an ‘up to’ in front of those numbers, realistically I got
around 14 then and 69 now.) There are _considerably_ more people living in
this area, and _substantially_ more commercial activity, than was the case
when I moved in. The telco responded to demand. A friend of mine moved into a
house in a rather more rural location than mine; he got 8 Mb/s then, and 24
now. There are far fewer people out where he lives. I know people who simply
cannot get DSL at any bitrate, they’re simply too far away from the nearest
DSLAM. There choices are cable (a no-starter, the cableco ain’t running
cable that far into the woods either), satellite, cell phone tethering (there
are cell towers relatively close by), direct microwave, and dial-up. Sorry,
but in many larger states there will be areas where DSL is simply not
available.
-dsr-
2018-07-22 22:42:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 18:02:20 +0300, Juho Julkunen
Post by Juho Julkunen
@gmail.com says...
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 06:51:29 +0300, Juho Julkunen
Post by Juho Julkunen
@gmail.com says...
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 05:12:52 +0300, Juho Julkunen
Post by Juho Julkunen
Also, why would the vast acres need to be wired? Wireless seems like a
more sensible solution for low density areas.
Do you have technology that will reliably provide 100+ Mb/sec
wirelessly over wide areas for less cost than cable or fiber?
Sorry, I can't even see that goalpost anymore.
The "goalpost" is to provide better Internet than we have now, cheaper
than we have now. Right now, today, I can pick up the phone and have
gigabit service installed this week for $120/month.
Can you beat that with any wireless technology currently commercially
available?
I responded to a scenario where wiring remote, underpopulated areas was
supposedly economically unfeasible. Any service is better than none.
In that case you're living in the past. I don't think that there are
any residences in the US in which phone service is not available--it
may not be active these days because some people are choosing to use
cellular as their only service but it's available. Wiring vast acres
is already a done deal. But it's wired for voice quality phone which
means DSL is the best available service.
Oh, no.

For many residences in the US, phone service is not economically
feasible.

But we decided as a political act that this service was too important
not to have everyone share in it, just as we had previously done for electricity.
As a result, low-population-density telephone systems are subsidized by the
government under the Universal Service program.

Since 1996, the FCC has considered Internet service to be a similarly
important service, but has been really awful about implementing it in
any sort of sane way. DSL is not the best available service -- if your
house is more than 12,000 feet from a central office, it is likely that
dial-up is the best available service. For around 4 million houses at the
time of the last official survey, that was the case. DSL was the best
available service for at least another 3 million houses. Both of those
numbers are known to be understated because the official definition of
being in a broadband service area is to have the service provider claim
that they can make it available at one address in the census unit... the
rest of the census unit may not be served at all.


-dsr-
J. Clarke
2018-07-23 00:30:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 18:42:53 -0400, -dsr-
Post by -dsr-
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 18:02:20 +0300, Juho Julkunen
Post by Juho Julkunen
@gmail.com says...
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 06:51:29 +0300, Juho Julkunen
Post by Juho Julkunen
@gmail.com says...
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 05:12:52 +0300, Juho Julkunen
Post by Juho Julkunen
Also, why would the vast acres need to be wired? Wireless seems like a
more sensible solution for low density areas.
Do you have technology that will reliably provide 100+ Mb/sec
wirelessly over wide areas for less cost than cable or fiber?
Sorry, I can't even see that goalpost anymore.
The "goalpost" is to provide better Internet than we have now, cheaper
than we have now. Right now, today, I can pick up the phone and have
gigabit service installed this week for $120/month.
Can you beat that with any wireless technology currently commercially
available?
I responded to a scenario where wiring remote, underpopulated areas was
supposedly economically unfeasible. Any service is better than none.
In that case you're living in the past. I don't think that there are
any residences in the US in which phone service is not available--it
may not be active these days because some people are choosing to use
cellular as their only service but it's available. Wiring vast acres
is already a done deal. But it's wired for voice quality phone which
means DSL is the best available service.
Oh, no.
For many residences in the US, phone service is not economically
feasible.
But we decided as a political act that this service was too important
not to have everyone share in it, just as we had previously done for electricity.
As a result, low-population-density telephone systems are subsidized by the
government under the Universal Service program.
So what? The wire is there.
Post by -dsr-
Since 1996, the FCC has considered Internet service to be a similarly
important service, but has been really awful about implementing it in
any sort of sane way. DSL is not the best available service -- if your
house is more than 12,000 feet from a central office, it is likely that
dial-up is the best available service. For around 4 million houses at the
time of the last official survey, that was the case.
4 million out of 325 million. You're talking fringe cases, now, not
mainstream.
Post by -dsr-
DSL was the best
available service for at least another 3 million houses. Both of those
numbers are known to be understated because the official definition of
being in a broadband service area is to have the service provider claim
that they can make it available at one address in the census unit... the
rest of the census unit may not be served at all.
Since you seem to have lost track of the discussion, the point being
addressed is the assertion that if the government allowed it dozens of
new companies would string cable all over the place so that everyone
would have cheap fast broadband.
Robert Carnegie
2018-07-23 07:55:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 18:42:53 -0400, -dsr-
Post by -dsr-
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 18:02:20 +0300, Juho Julkunen
Post by Juho Julkunen
@gmail.com says...
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 06:51:29 +0300, Juho Julkunen
Post by Juho Julkunen
@gmail.com says...
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 05:12:52 +0300, Juho Julkunen
Post by Juho Julkunen
Also, why would the vast acres need to be wired? Wireless seems like a
more sensible solution for low density areas.
Do you have technology that will reliably provide 100+ Mb/sec
wirelessly over wide areas for less cost than cable or fiber?
Sorry, I can't even see that goalpost anymore.
The "goalpost" is to provide better Internet than we have now, cheaper
than we have now. Right now, today, I can pick up the phone and have
gigabit service installed this week for $120/month.
Can you beat that with any wireless technology currently commercially
available?
I responded to a scenario where wiring remote, underpopulated areas was
supposedly economically unfeasible. Any service is better than none.
In that case you're living in the past. I don't think that there are
any residences in the US in which phone service is not available--it
may not be active these days because some people are choosing to use
cellular as their only service but it's available. Wiring vast acres
is already a done deal. But it's wired for voice quality phone which
means DSL is the best available service.
Oh, no.
For many residences in the US, phone service is not economically
feasible.
But we decided as a political act that this service was too important
not to have everyone share in it, just as we had previously done for electricity.
As a result, low-population-density telephone systems are subsidized by the
government under the Universal Service program.
So what? The wire is there.
Post by -dsr-
Since 1996, the FCC has considered Internet service to be a similarly
important service, but has been really awful about implementing it in
any sort of sane way. DSL is not the best available service -- if your
house is more than 12,000 feet from a central office, it is likely that
dial-up is the best available service. For around 4 million houses at the
time of the last official survey, that was the case.
4 million out of 325 million. You're talking fringe cases, now, not
mainstream.
Post by -dsr-
DSL was the best
available service for at least another 3 million houses. Both of those
numbers are known to be understated because the official definition of
being in a broadband service area is to have the service provider claim
that they can make it available at one address in the census unit... the
rest of the census unit may not be served at all.
Since you seem to have lost track of the discussion, the point being
addressed is the assertion that if the government allowed it dozens of
new companies would string cable all over the place so that everyone
would have cheap fast broadband.
As opposed to, say, not everyone.

Not being everyone sucks.
-dsr-
2018-07-23 17:03:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 18:42:53 -0400, -dsr-
Post by -dsr-
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 18:02:20 +0300, Juho Julkunen
Post by Juho Julkunen
@gmail.com says...
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 06:51:29 +0300, Juho Julkunen
Post by Juho Julkunen
@gmail.com says...
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 05:12:52 +0300, Juho Julkunen
Post by Juho Julkunen
Also, why would the vast acres need to be wired? Wireless seems like a
more sensible solution for low density areas.
Do you have technology that will reliably provide 100+ Mb/sec
wirelessly over wide areas for less cost than cable or fiber?
Sorry, I can't even see that goalpost anymore.
The "goalpost" is to provide better Internet than we have now, cheaper
than we have now. Right now, today, I can pick up the phone and have
gigabit service installed this week for $120/month.
Can you beat that with any wireless technology currently commercially
available?
I responded to a scenario where wiring remote, underpopulated areas was
supposedly economically unfeasible. Any service is better than none.
In that case you're living in the past. I don't think that there are
any residences in the US in which phone service is not available--it
may not be active these days because some people are choosing to use
cellular as their only service but it's available. Wiring vast acres
is already a done deal. But it's wired for voice quality phone which
means DSL is the best available service.
Oh, no.
For many residences in the US, phone service is not economically
feasible.
But we decided as a political act that this service was too important
not to have everyone share in it, just as we had previously done for electricity.
As a result, low-population-density telephone systems are subsidized by the
government under the Universal Service program.
So what? The wire is there.
DSL requires a central office within 12000 feet.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by -dsr-
Since 1996, the FCC has considered Internet service to be a similarly
important service, but has been really awful about implementing it in
any sort of sane way. DSL is not the best available service -- if your
house is more than 12,000 feet from a central office, it is likely that
dial-up is the best available service. For around 4 million houses at the
time of the last official survey, that was the case.
4 million out of 325 million. You're talking fringe cases, now, not
mainstream.
Houses, not people. 4 million out of about 120 million.

Perhaps you are not aware that the majority of people around the world
like to live in cities? Something over 80% of the US, for example.

So the denominator is not 325 million, it's about 64 million people,
living in roughly 30 million houses -- of which 4 million are not
serviceable at all.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by -dsr-
DSL was the best
available service for at least another 3 million houses. Both of those
numbers are known to be understated because the official definition of
being in a broadband service area is to have the service provider claim
that they can make it available at one address in the census unit... the
rest of the census unit may not be served at all.
Since you seem to have lost track of the discussion, the point being
addressed is the assertion that if the government allowed it dozens of
new companies would string cable all over the place so that everyone
would have cheap fast broadband.
And my counter is that there are two basic scenarios:

1. urban areas, 80% of the population: government action is necessary to
prevent monopolies and dismantle the ones that exist.

2. rural areas, 20% of the population: government action and funding is
necessary to get decent service out there.

-dsr-
Scott Lurndal
2018-07-23 18:43:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by -dsr-
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 18:42:53 -0400, -dsr-
Post by -dsr-
But we decided as a political act that this service was too important
not to have everyone share in it, just as we had previously done for electricity.
As a result, low-population-density telephone systems are subsidized by the
government under the Universal Service program.
So what? The wire is there.
DSL requires a central office within 12000 feet.
Or a remote terminal (RT) within that distance.
J. Clarke
2018-07-27 00:53:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 13:03:48 -0400, -dsr-
Post by -dsr-
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 18:42:53 -0400, -dsr-
Post by -dsr-
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 18:02:20 +0300, Juho Julkunen
Post by Juho Julkunen
@gmail.com says...
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 06:51:29 +0300, Juho Julkunen
Post by Juho Julkunen
@gmail.com says...
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 05:12:52 +0300, Juho Julkunen
Post by Juho Julkunen
Also, why would the vast acres need to be wired? Wireless seems like a
more sensible solution for low density areas.
Do you have technology that will reliably provide 100+ Mb/sec
wirelessly over wide areas for less cost than cable or fiber?
Sorry, I can't even see that goalpost anymore.
The "goalpost" is to provide better Internet than we have now, cheaper
than we have now. Right now, today, I can pick up the phone and have
gigabit service installed this week for $120/month.
Can you beat that with any wireless technology currently commercially
available?
I responded to a scenario where wiring remote, underpopulated areas was
supposedly economically unfeasible. Any service is better than none.
In that case you're living in the past. I don't think that there are
any residences in the US in which phone service is not available--it
may not be active these days because some people are choosing to use
cellular as their only service but it's available. Wiring vast acres
is already a done deal. But it's wired for voice quality phone which
means DSL is the best available service.
Oh, no.
For many residences in the US, phone service is not economically
feasible.
But we decided as a political act that this service was too important
not to have everyone share in it, just as we had previously done for electricity.
As a result, low-population-density telephone systems are subsidized by the
government under the Universal Service program.
So what? The wire is there.
DSL requires a central office within 12000 feet.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by -dsr-
Since 1996, the FCC has considered Internet service to be a similarly
important service, but has been really awful about implementing it in
any sort of sane way. DSL is not the best available service -- if your
house is more than 12,000 feet from a central office, it is likely that
dial-up is the best available service. For around 4 million houses at the
time of the last official survey, that was the case.
4 million out of 325 million. You're talking fringe cases, now, not
mainstream.
Houses, not people. 4 million out of about 120 million.
Still fringe cases. Do you really think that deregulating Internet
will induce dozens of companies to rush to run connections to those
houses?

In any case, only about 2/3 of the population lives in houses.
Post by -dsr-
Perhaps you are not aware that the majority of people around the world
like to live in cities? Something over 80% of the US, for example.
What of it?
Post by -dsr-
So the denominator is not 325 million, it's about 64 million people,
living in roughly 30 million houses -- of which 4 million are not
serviceable at all.
What, you think that cities have dozens of internet vendors servicing
each address?
Post by -dsr-
Post by J. Clarke
Post by -dsr-
DSL was the best
available service for at least another 3 million houses. Both of those
numbers are known to be understated because the official definition of
being in a broadband service area is to have the service provider claim
that they can make it available at one address in the census unit... the
rest of the census unit may not be served at all.
Since you seem to have lost track of the discussion, the point being
addressed is the assertion that if the government allowed it dozens of
new companies would string cable all over the place so that everyone
would have cheap fast broadband.
1. urban areas, 80% of the population: government action is necessary to
prevent monopolies and dismantle the ones that exist.
And you have not shown that removing government regulation will result
in dozens of companies stringing new wires all over the place in the
limited and already packed wiring routes that exist in cities, nor
have you show than "competition" all sharing the same infrastructure
will result in anything other than money in the pockets of companies
that don't actually do anything but collect payments and pay the owner
of the infrastructure.
Post by -dsr-
2. rural areas, 20% of the population: government action and funding is
necessary to get decent service out there.
Only if all 20 percent lack "decent service". Is that the case?
Post by -dsr-
-dsr-
-dsr-
2018-07-27 01:53:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 13:03:48 -0400, -dsr-
Post by -dsr-
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 18:42:53 -0400, -dsr-
Post by -dsr-
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 18:02:20 +0300, Juho Julkunen
Post by Juho Julkunen
@gmail.com says...
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 06:51:29 +0300, Juho Julkunen
Post by Juho Julkunen
@gmail.com says...
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 05:12:52 +0300, Juho Julkunen
Post by Juho Julkunen
Also, why would the vast acres need to be wired? Wireless seems like a
more sensible solution for low density areas.
Do you have technology that will reliably provide 100+ Mb/sec
wirelessly over wide areas for less cost than cable or fiber?
Sorry, I can't even see that goalpost anymore.
The "goalpost" is to provide better Internet than we have now, cheaper
than we have now. Right now, today, I can pick up the phone and have
gigabit service installed this week for $120/month.
Can you beat that with any wireless technology currently commercially
available?
I responded to a scenario where wiring remote, underpopulated areas was
supposedly economically unfeasible. Any service is better than none.
In that case you're living in the past. I don't think that there are
any residences in the US in which phone service is not available--it
may not be active these days because some people are choosing to use
cellular as their only service but it's available. Wiring vast acres
is already a done deal. But it's wired for voice quality phone which
means DSL is the best available service.
Oh, no.
For many residences in the US, phone service is not economically
feasible.
But we decided as a political act that this service was too important
not to have everyone share in it, just as we had previously done for electricity.
As a result, low-population-density telephone systems are subsidized by the
government under the Universal Service program.
So what? The wire is there.
DSL requires a central office within 12000 feet.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by -dsr-
Since 1996, the FCC has considered Internet service to be a similarly
important service, but has been really awful about implementing it in
any sort of sane way. DSL is not the best available service -- if your
house is more than 12,000 feet from a central office, it is likely that
dial-up is the best available service. For around 4 million houses at the
time of the last official survey, that was the case.
4 million out of 325 million. You're talking fringe cases, now, not
mainstream.
Houses, not people. 4 million out of about 120 million.
Still fringe cases. Do you really think that deregulating Internet
will induce dozens of companies to rush to run connections to those
houses?
Er. No. Only government subsidies or the equivalent in managed projects
will get decent connections out there.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by -dsr-
Post by J. Clarke
Since you seem to have lost track of the discussion, the point being
addressed is the assertion that if the government allowed it dozens of
new companies would string cable all over the place so that everyone
would have cheap fast broadband.
1. urban areas, 80% of the population: government action is necessary to
prevent monopolies and dismantle the ones that exist.
And you have not shown that removing government regulation will result
in dozens of companies stringing new wires all over the place in the
limited and already packed wiring routes that exist in cities, nor
have you show than "competition" all sharing the same infrastructure
will result in anything other than money in the pockets of companies
that don't actually do anything but collect payments and pay the owner
of the infrastructure.
I don't think removing government regulation will do that, no. I think
much stronger government regulation is required to get to a competitive
market in most cities.

-dsr-
Greg Goss
2018-07-23 02:44:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 18:02:20 +0300, Juho Julkunen
Post by Juho Julkunen
@gmail.com says...
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 06:51:29 +0300, Juho Julkunen
Post by Juho Julkunen
@gmail.com says...
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 05:12:52 +0300, Juho Julkunen
Post by Juho Julkunen
Also, why would the vast acres need to be wired? Wireless seems like a
more sensible solution for low density areas.
Do you have technology that will reliably provide 100+ Mb/sec
wirelessly over wide areas for less cost than cable or fiber?
Sorry, I can't even see that goalpost anymore.
The "goalpost" is to provide better Internet than we have now, cheaper
than we have now. Right now, today, I can pick up the phone and have
gigabit service installed this week for $120/month.
Can you beat that with any wireless technology currently commercially
available?
I responded to a scenario where wiring remote, underpopulated areas was
supposedly economically unfeasible. Any service is better than none.
In that case you're living in the past. I don't think that there are
any residences in the US in which phone service is not available--it
may not be active these days because some people are choosing to use
cellular as their only service but it's available. Wiring vast acres
is already a done deal. But it's wired for voice quality phone which
means DSL is the best available service.
DSL only works for three or five miles or so from the wiring closet.
Voice phone works for dozens of miles. My sister had phone service,
but didn't get ADSL till the telco rented an equipment closet about
three miles away.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
J. Clarke
2018-07-23 03:08:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greg Goss
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 18:02:20 +0300, Juho Julkunen
Post by Juho Julkunen
@gmail.com says...
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 06:51:29 +0300, Juho Julkunen
Post by Juho Julkunen
@gmail.com says...
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 05:12:52 +0300, Juho Julkunen
Post by Juho Julkunen
Also, why would the vast acres need to be wired? Wireless seems like a
more sensible solution for low density areas.
Do you have technology that will reliably provide 100+ Mb/sec
wirelessly over wide areas for less cost than cable or fiber?
Sorry, I can't even see that goalpost anymore.
The "goalpost" is to provide better Internet than we have now, cheaper
than we have now. Right now, today, I can pick up the phone and have
gigabit service installed this week for $120/month.
Can you beat that with any wireless technology currently commercially
available?
I responded to a scenario where wiring remote, underpopulated areas was
supposedly economically unfeasible. Any service is better than none.
In that case you're living in the past. I don't think that there are
any residences in the US in which phone service is not available--it
may not be active these days because some people are choosing to use
cellular as their only service but it's available. Wiring vast acres
is already a done deal. But it's wired for voice quality phone which
means DSL is the best available service.
DSL only works for three or five miles or so from the wiring closet.
Voice phone works for dozens of miles. My sister had phone service,
but didn't get ADSL till the telco rented an equipment closet about
three miles away.
OK, so you think that if the telco won't put in a wiring closet then
some other company is going to string cable the whole distance to get
your sister's business, if only that mean ol' government will let
them?
h***@gmail.com
2018-07-23 03:20:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
OK, so you think that if the telco won't put in a wiring closet then
some other company is going to string cable the whole distance to get
your sister's business, if only that mean ol' government will let
them?
Have you ever considered trying to understand what other people are saying before you start arguing with them?
It might save you a lot of stress.
Greg Goss
2018-07-23 15:06:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
OK, so you think that if the telco won't put in a wiring closet then
some other company is going to string cable the whole distance to get
your sister's business, if only that mean ol' government will let
them?
Have you ever considered trying to understand what other people are saying before you start arguing with them?
It might save you a lot of stress.
He thinks we're still arguing about "regulated monopolies" vs Ayn
Rand.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
J. Clarke
2018-07-27 00:54:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greg Goss
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
OK, so you think that if the telco won't put in a wiring closet then
some other company is going to string cable the whole distance to get
your sister's business, if only that mean ol' government will let
them?
Have you ever considered trying to understand what other people are saying before you start arguing with them?
It might save you a lot of stress.
He thinks we're still arguing about "regulated monopolies" vs Ayn
Rand.
No, Greg, I think that the notion that the government refusing to
allow it is the major obstacle to having fast Internet in East
Bumfuck, Idaho, population 2 if you count the dog, then you really
don't understand the problem.
Scott Lurndal
2018-07-27 17:22:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Greg Goss
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
OK, so you think that if the telco won't put in a wiring closet then
some other company is going to string cable the whole distance to get
your sister's business, if only that mean ol' government will let
them?
Have you ever considered trying to understand what other people are saying before you start arguing with them?
It might save you a lot of stress.
He thinks we're still arguing about "regulated monopolies" vs Ayn
Rand.
No, Greg, I think that the notion that the government refusing to
allow it is the major obstacle to having fast Internet in East
Bumfuck, Idaho, population 2 if you count the dog, then you really
don't understand the problem.
Yes, the major problem is the damn ISP's suing to prevent cities
from building out their own infrastructure. Even in east bumfuck idaho.
Greg Goss
2018-07-23 15:05:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Juho Julkunen
Also, why would the vast acres need to be wired? Wireless seems like a
more sensible solution for low density areas.
DSL only works for three or five miles or so from the wiring closet.
Voice phone works for dozens of miles. My sister had phone service,
but didn't get ADSL till the telco rented an equipment closet about
three miles away.
OK, so you think that if the telco won't put in a wiring closet then
some other company is going to string cable the whole distance to get
your sister's business, if only that mean ol' government will let
them?
The thread split way back there. It's too late to prevent drift now.
I was arguing about "vast areas", while your half of the thread is
about whether "government owned or regulated monopolies are necessary
in some contexts."

I'm not disputing the latter.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
J. Clarke
2018-07-27 00:56:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greg Goss
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Juho Julkunen
Also, why would the vast acres need to be wired? Wireless seems like a
more sensible solution for low density areas.
DSL only works for three or five miles or so from the wiring closet.
Voice phone works for dozens of miles. My sister had phone service,
but didn't get ADSL till the telco rented an equipment closet about
three miles away.
OK, so you think that if the telco won't put in a wiring closet then
some other company is going to string cable the whole distance to get
your sister's business, if only that mean ol' government will let
them?
The thread split way back there. It's too late to prevent drift now.
I was arguing about "vast areas", while your half of the thread is
about whether "government owned or regulated monopolies are necessary
in some contexts."
I'm not disputing the latter.
So do you think that if internet service was completely unregulated
and anybody who wanted to could string cable anywhere they wanted to
any time they wanted to, that this would result in cable being strung
to some random single-family house so far out in the boonies that the
telephone company couldn't be assed to install a repeater?
Garrett Wollman
2018-07-27 01:01:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
So do you think that if internet service was completely unregulated
and anybody who wanted to could string cable anywhere they wanted to
any time they wanted to, that this would result in cable being strung
to some random single-family house so far out in the boonies that the
telephone company couldn't be assed to install a repeater?
No one in this thread has suggested that, so perhaps you might give
that straw man a rest.

-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
***@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)
J. Clarke
2018-07-27 02:20:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Garrett Wollman
Post by J. Clarke
So do you think that if internet service was completely unregulated
and anybody who wanted to could string cable anywhere they wanted to
any time they wanted to, that this would result in cable being strung
to some random single-family house so far out in the boonies that the
telephone company couldn't be assed to install a repeater?
No one in this thread has suggested that, so perhaps you might give
that straw man a rest.
So what exactly do you propose, since it's not a monopoly and it's
not the existing system and it's not deregulation?
Post by Garrett Wollman
-GAWollman
Garrett Wollman
2018-07-27 03:16:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Garrett Wollman
Post by J. Clarke
So do you think that if internet service was completely unregulated
and anybody who wanted to could string cable anywhere they wanted to
any time they wanted to, that this would result in cable being strung
to some random single-family house so far out in the boonies that the
telephone company couldn't be assed to install a repeater?
No one in this thread has suggested that, so perhaps you might give
that straw man a rest.
So what exactly do you propose, since it's not a monopoly and it's
not the existing system and it's not deregulation?
I haven't proposed *anything*. The only positions I've advocated are
that large parts of the United States are uneconomical to serve with
Internet access at any reasonable bandwidth, and that substantial
government power (in the form of monopolies and substantial subsidies)
was exercised in even getting them telephone service. The monopolies
are gone now, but capital investment required of any new market
entrant is so high as to effectively preclude competition in these
areas.

An economist would consider a market for Internet access that consists
solely of AT&T and Spectrum, or Comcast and Verizon, or any two
incumbent former monopoly local-loop operators, to be "monopolistic
competition", not actual competition. That is what most of the more
densely populated places in the US have: a choice between The Phone
Company and The Cable Company. Only in a few areas like Washington,
D.C., and eastern Massachusetts, did it once seem that actual wireline
competition would be a practical thing -- and the overbuilder who
wired those markets as a third carrier isn't building any new networks
and is only profitable because the debts incurred to build that
footprint were discharged in bankruptcy.

The same financial constraints that limited wireline overbuilds to
rich, densely populated cities with large numbers of cheaper-to-wire
MDUs apply equally to wireless technologies: the only places that will
have wireline-competitive 5G wireless services will be the ones where
the population is dense enough to make the economics work.

So here's a proposal: if you want high-speed Internet, move to a city.
(In reality, this won't happen, because land outvotes people in the
United States Senate -- eventually there will be even bigger
urban-to-rural transfers as the price to get some much more important
legislation passed.)

-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
***@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)
Cryptoengineer
2018-07-27 17:11:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Garrett Wollman
The same financial constraints that limited wireline overbuilds to
rich, densely populated cities with large numbers of cheaper-to-wire
MDUs apply equally to wireless technologies: the only places that will
have wireline-competitive 5G wireless services will be the ones where
the population is dense enough to make the economics work.
So here's a proposal: if you want high-speed Internet, move to a city.
(In reality, this won't happen, because land outvotes people in the
United States Senate -- eventually there will be even bigger
urban-to-rural transfers as the price to get some much more important
legislation passed.)
So here's a proposal: if you want high-speed Internet, move to a city.
So here's a proposal: if you want telephone service, move to a city.
So here's a proposal: if you want utility-supplied electricity,
move to a city.
So here's a proposal: if you want inexpensive postal service, move
to a city.
So here's a proposal: if you want paved roade, move to a city.

At one time, all of these proposals were rational.

Part of living as part of a *society*, as opposed to a dog-eat-dog
anarchy, is that some common needs are supplied in common, from
common funds, to every member of that society. Not out of foolish
generousity to the improvident, but because in the long run, the
entire society prospers as a result.

There's a very valid question as to which needs, and which services,
should be supplied in common, and which should not. In the US, at the
moment, such things as health care and higher education are in the
balance. Looking at other Western nations, they seem to manage
pretty well.

Do you think rural electrification, universal telephone and mail
service left us a poorer nation?

pt
Garrett Wollman
2018-07-27 20:43:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cryptoengineer
Do you think rural electrification, universal telephone and mail
service left us a poorer nation?
No, at the time those services were introduced, the US was still
majority rural, transportation was much more expensive (in time and
money), and there was an employment base in rural areas -- mainly
agriculture -- that could support the population that then existed.
The provision of those services (under a government or
government-enforced monopoly with cross-subsidy from more profitable
services) was clearly a net positive.

As you have probably noticed, the US is now majority urban, most of
the jobs in agriculture are seasonal jobs performed by migrants, and
transportation is vastly faster and cheaper (except by train). There
is now little reason other than personal preference for the vast
majority of people to live out in the boonies, and perhaps those
people should bear more of the costs that result from their exercise
of those preferences.

-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
***@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)
Lynn McGuire
2018-07-23 18:22:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 06:51:29 +0300, Juho Julkunen
Post by Juho Julkunen
@gmail.com says...
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 05:12:52 +0300, Juho Julkunen
Post by Juho Julkunen
Also, why would the vast acres need to be wired? Wireless seems like a
more sensible solution for low density areas.
Do you have technology that will reliably provide 100+ Mb/sec
wirelessly over wide areas for less cost than cable or fiber?
Sorry, I can't even see that goalpost anymore.
The "goalpost" is to provide better Internet than we have now, cheaper
than we have now. Right now, today, I can pick up the phone and have
gigabit service installed this week for $120/month.
Can you beat that with any wireless technology currently commercially
available?
I can not meet that price at either my home or my office. AT&T wants
$1,000/month for a fiber line into my office so we have two DSL lines at
12/1 mbps for $65/month each. AT&T does have a fiber line at the front
side of the nine acres for my office.

Also, both AT&T and Comcast do not have fiber to the curb in my
neighborhood. And Comcast is dead to me anyway so I have a 28/2 mbps
DSL line from AT&T to the house for $65/month.

Lynn
Garrett Wollman
2018-07-22 05:03:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Juho Julkunen
[I wrote:]
[1] In large parts of the US, even *with* a monopoly it still doesn't
make economic sense, which is why there are still huge urban-rural
cross-subsidies just to ensure that these places have any kind of
service at all.
I'm not sure why you say "even with". Monopolies don't have much
incentive to stretch themselves. Why would they? They don't have
competition.
No, the monopoly was the reward for actually building anything at all,
when nobody else wanted to, before 1996.
Post by Juho Julkunen
Also, why would the vast acres need to be wired? Wireless seems like a
more sensible solution for low density areas.
Wireless does not have remotely sufficient capacity to serve those
areas, and the way you get more wireless capacity is by putting fiber
in to support additional base stations. Perhaps with the new 500-600
MHz spectrum coming on line there will be some relief -- there are
conditions in the licenses about minimum coverage standards -- but of
course most of the investment will go into urban areas where the
returns are vastly higher.

And there's a lot of population stuck in the exurban regime where
density is too low to repay the construction investment and too high
to provide reliable speeds when everyone sits down at 7 PM and wants
to watch Netflix.

-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
***@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)
J. Clarke
2018-07-22 11:59:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Garrett Wollman
Post by Juho Julkunen
[I wrote:]
[1] In large parts of the US, even *with* a monopoly it still doesn't
make economic sense, which is why there are still huge urban-rural
cross-subsidies just to ensure that these places have any kind of
service at all.
I'm not sure why you say "even with". Monopolies don't have much
incentive to stretch themselves. Why would they? They don't have
competition.
No, the monopoly was the reward for actually building anything at all,
when nobody else wanted to, before 1996.
Post by Juho Julkunen
Also, why would the vast acres need to be wired? Wireless seems like a
more sensible solution for low density areas.
Wireless does not have remotely sufficient capacity to serve those
areas, and the way you get more wireless capacity is by putting fiber
in to support additional base stations. Perhaps with the new 500-600
MHz spectrum coming on line there will be some relief -- there are
conditions in the licenses about minimum coverage standards -- but of
course most of the investment will go into urban areas where the
returns are vastly higher.
I can't see delivering 10 Megabit internet to millions of users using
35 MHz of bandwidth.
Post by Garrett Wollman
And there's a lot of population stuck in the exurban regime where
density is too low to repay the construction investment and too high
to provide reliable speeds when everyone sits down at 7 PM and wants
to watch Netflix.
Yep.
Robert Woodward
2018-07-18 16:58:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 07:41:56 -0500, David DeLaney
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Moriarty
Sufficiently intrigued by the concept, I bought a copy at my
local bricks-and-mortar SF bookshop for about $20.
[...]
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Moriarty
Given a book that sells for $20 (mmpb) or $12 (kindle edition),
I do not know how things work in Australia, but I do know U.S. and
British publishing customs. A mass-market paperback will normally
earn a royalty equivalent to 6%, 8%, or 10% of cover price; if this is
a beginning author she probably got 6%, so that $20.00 book earns her $1.20.
<snip>
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
So you may see that in fact, authors often make more on an ebook than
on a paperback.
Yes, okay, I'll throw this fact into my tipping mental balance. I am still
unhappy about the imminent death of MMPBs (film at $11), but also about the
"ebooks are priced at the most expensive physical version" paradigm. Rant
available on request.
Ebook pricing is all over the place.
Just as an example, here are the _current_ (18th of July 2018) e-book
prices for five Wen Spencer titles (all originally published by RoC
books whose corporate owner still holds publication rights), BTW, all
are mass market paperbacks which have not had a paperback printing for
over a decade:

_Alien Taste_ (Ukiah Oregon #1): $2.99
_Tainted Trail_ (Ukiah Oregon #2): $5.99
_Bitter Waters_ (Ukiah Oregon #3): $7.99
_Dog Warrior_ (Ukiah Oregon #4): $7.99
_A Brother's Price_: $14.99 !!
(this was significantly lower several years ago)
--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
-------------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward ***@drizzle.com
news{@bestley.co.uk (Mark Bestley)
2018-07-18 22:10:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Woodward
In article
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 07:41:56 -0500, David DeLaney
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Moriarty
Sufficiently intrigued by the concept, I bought a copy at my
local bricks-and-mortar SF bookshop for about $20.
[...]
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Moriarty
Given a book that sells for $20 (mmpb) or $12 (kindle edition),
I do not know how things work in Australia, but I do know U.S. and
British publishing customs. A mass-market paperback will normally
earn a royalty equivalent to 6%, 8%, or 10% of cover price; if this is
a beginning author she probably got 6%, so that $20.00 book earns her $1.20.
<snip>
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
So you may see that in fact, authors often make more on an ebook than
on a paperback.
Yes, okay, I'll throw this fact into my tipping mental balance. I am still
unhappy about the imminent death of MMPBs (film at $11), but also about the
"ebooks are priced at the most expensive physical version" paradigm. Rant
available on request.
Ebook pricing is all over the place.
Just as an example, here are the _current_ (18th of July 2018) e-book
prices for five Wen Spencer titles (all originally published by RoC
books whose corporate owner still holds publication rights), BTW, all
are mass market paperbacks which have not had a paperback printing for
_Alien Taste_ (Ukiah Oregon #1): $2.99
_Tainted Trail_ (Ukiah Oregon #2): $5.99
_Bitter Waters_ (Ukiah Oregon #3): $7.99
_Dog Warrior_ (Ukiah Oregon #4): $7.99
_A Brother's Price_: $14.99 !!
(this was significantly lower several years ago)
None of those are avalable in Amazon UK Kindle store :( Just here Baen
books
I do have _A Brother's Price_ from Fictionwise before they put the
region controls on - and it was much less then


Mark
--
Mark
Moriarty
2018-07-18 21:54:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 07:41:56 -0500, David DeLaney
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Moriarty
Sufficiently intrigued by the concept, I bought a copy at my
local bricks-and-mortar SF bookshop for about $20.
[...]
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Moriarty
Given a book that sells for $20 (mmpb) or $12 (kindle edition),
I do not know how things work in Australia, but I do know U.S. and
British publishing customs. A mass-market paperback will normally
earn a royalty equivalent to 6%, 8%, or 10% of cover price; if this is
a beginning author she probably got 6%, so that $20.00 book earns her $1.20.
I'm unfamiliar with AU processes also, though I hear their prices are higher -
but twenty bucks for a MMPB ??! What's more than twice what they cost here!
I assume that's Australian dollars, not U.S. It's about $14.75 U.S.
Still steep but not ridiculous.
That's about right. When I buy books from the US or UK, I can usually save a couple of bucks, but no more than that.

-Moriarty
David DeLaney
2018-07-23 10:18:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Moriarty
That's about right. When I buy books from the US or UK, I can usually save
a couple of bucks, but no more than that.
Let's side-check. In .au, how much is a double cheeseburger, fries, and a Coke
at a McDonald's, in $AU?

Dave, no, it's not a shirt
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Greg Goss
2018-07-23 15:10:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Moriarty
That's about right. When I buy books from the US or UK, I can usually save
a couple of bucks, but no more than that.
Let's side-check. In .au, how much is a double cheeseburger, fries, and a Coke
at a McDonald's, in $AU?
https://www.economist.com/news/2018/07/11/the-big-mac-index

"A Big Mac costs A$6.05 in Australia and US$5.51 in the United States.
The implied exchange rate is 1.10. The difference between this and the
actual exchange rate, 1.34, suggests the Australian dollar is 18.1%
undervalued."
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-07-18 15:27:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David DeLaney
Yes, okay, I'll throw this fact into my tipping mental balance.
I am still unhappy about the imminent death of MMPBs (film at
$11), but also about the "ebooks are priced at the most
expensive physical version" paradigm. Rant available on request.
There are many things to object to in the way that ebooks are made
and sold. But royalties to authors isn't generally one of them. (And
when it is, it's not ebooks that are the problem, it's publishers who
screwe everybody in every way at every opportunity. And that's like
complaining that grass is green and water is wet.)
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Dimensional Traveler
2018-07-18 16:31:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by David DeLaney
Yes, okay, I'll throw this fact into my tipping mental balance.
I am still unhappy about the imminent death of MMPBs (film at
$11), but also about the "ebooks are priced at the most
expensive physical version" paradigm. Rant available on request.
There are many things to object to in the way that ebooks are made
and sold. But royalties to authors isn't generally one of them. (And
when it is, it's not ebooks that are the problem, it's publishers who
screwe everybody in every way at every opportunity. And that's like
complaining that grass is green and water is wet.)
Can we complain about the water being green and grass being wet?
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-07-18 16:46:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by David DeLaney
Yes, okay, I'll throw this fact into my tipping mental
balance. I am still unhappy about the imminent death of MMPBs
(film at $11), but also about the "ebooks are priced at the
most expensive physical version" paradigm. Rant available on
request.
There are many things to object to in the way that ebooks are
made and sold. But royalties to authors isn't generally one of
them. (And when it is, it's not ebooks that are the problem,
it's publishers who screwe everybody in every way at every
opportunity. And that's like complaining that grass is green
and water is wet.)
Can we complain about the water being green and grass being wet?
I'm certain you can, but if your water is green, that's really not an
empty complaint. And wet grass, which pretty common in the morning,
can be somewhat hazardous if you walk across it, so that, too, is a
somewhat legitimate complaint.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
-dsr-
2018-07-18 18:25:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by David DeLaney
Yes, okay, I'll throw this fact into my tipping mental balance.
I am still unhappy about the imminent death of MMPBs (film at
$11), but also about the "ebooks are priced at the most
expensive physical version" paradigm. Rant available on request.
There are many things to object to in the way that ebooks are made
and sold. But royalties to authors isn't generally one of them. (And
when it is, it's not ebooks that are the problem, it's publishers who
screwe everybody in every way at every opportunity. And that's like
complaining that grass is green and water is wet.)
Can we complain about the water being green and grass being wet?
Certainly, but to return it to sfnal complaints, really efficient
photosynthesizers ought to be black.

-dsr-
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-07-18 19:51:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by -dsr-
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by David DeLaney
Yes, okay, I'll throw this fact into my tipping mental
balance. I am still unhappy about the imminent death of MMPBs
(film at $11), but also about the "ebooks are priced at the
most expensive physical version" paradigm. Rant available on
request.
There are many things to object to in the way that ebooks are
made and sold. But royalties to authors isn't generally one of
them. (And when it is, it's not ebooks that are the problem,
it's publishers who screwe everybody in every way at every
opportunity. And that's like complaining that grass is green
and water is wet.)
Can we complain about the water being green and grass being
wet?
Certainly, but to return it to sfnal complaints, really
efficient photosynthesizers ought to be black.
Well, that's the complaint, then, isn't it?
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Lynn McGuire
2018-07-18 19:54:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by -dsr-
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by David DeLaney
Yes, okay, I'll throw this fact into my tipping mental balance.
I am still unhappy about the imminent death of MMPBs (film at
$11), but also about the "ebooks are priced at the most
expensive physical version" paradigm. Rant available on request.
There are many things to object to in the way that ebooks are made
and sold. But royalties to authors isn't generally one of them. (And
when it is, it's not ebooks that are the problem, it's publishers who
screwe everybody in every way at every opportunity. And that's like
complaining that grass is green and water is wet.)
Can we complain about the water being green and grass being wet?
Certainly, but to return it to sfnal complaints, really efficient
photosynthesizers ought to be black.
-dsr-
But no sunlight would be left for global warming then !

Lynn
-dsr-
2018-07-18 20:39:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by -dsr-
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by David DeLaney
Yes, okay, I'll throw this fact into my tipping mental balance.
I am still unhappy about the imminent death of MMPBs (film at
$11), but also about the "ebooks are priced at the most
expensive physical version" paradigm. Rant available on request.
There are many things to object to in the way that ebooks are made
and sold. But royalties to authors isn't generally one of them. (And
when it is, it's not ebooks that are the problem, it's publishers who
screwe everybody in every way at every opportunity. And that's like
complaining that grass is green and water is wet.)
Can we complain about the water being green and grass being wet?
Certainly, but to return it to sfnal complaints, really efficient
photosynthesizers ought to be black.
-dsr-
But no sunlight would be left for global warming then !
Thermodynamics: we have previously established you don't understand it.

-dsr-
Alan Baker
2018-07-18 21:16:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by -dsr-
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by -dsr-
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by David DeLaney
Yes, okay, I'll throw this fact into my tipping mental balance.
I am still unhappy about the imminent death of MMPBs (film at
$11), but also about the "ebooks are priced at the most
expensive physical version" paradigm. Rant available on request.
There are many things to object to in the way that ebooks are made
and sold. But royalties to authors isn't generally one of them. (And
when it is, it's not ebooks that are the problem, it's publishers who
screwe everybody in every way at every opportunity. And that's like
complaining that grass is green and water is wet.)
Can we complain about the water being green and grass being wet?
Certainly, but to return it to sfnal complaints, really efficient
photosynthesizers ought to be black.
-dsr-
But no sunlight would be left for global warming then !
Thermodynamics: we have previously established you don't understand it.
-dsr-
I'd assumed the PP was joking...

...but yours might be the more accurate assessment.

:-)
Lynn McGuire
2018-07-18 22:12:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by -dsr-
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by -dsr-
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by David DeLaney
Yes, okay, I'll throw this fact into my tipping mental balance.
I am still unhappy about the imminent death of MMPBs (film at
$11), but also about the "ebooks are priced at the most
expensive physical version" paradigm. Rant available on request.
There are many things to object to in the way that ebooks are made
and sold. But royalties to authors isn't generally one of them. (And
when it is, it's not ebooks that are the problem, it's publishers who
screwe everybody in every way at every opportunity. And that's like
complaining that grass is green and water is wet.)
Can we complain about the water being green and grass being wet?
Certainly, but to return it to sfnal complaints, really efficient
photosynthesizers ought to be black.
-dsr-
But no sunlight would be left for global warming then !
Thermodynamics: we have previously established you don't understand it.
-dsr-
Chemical, statistical, or molecular thermodynamics ?

Lynn
David DeLaney
2018-07-23 10:20:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by -dsr-
Thermodynamics: we have previously established you don't understand it.
Chemical, statistical, or molecular thermodynamics ?
... informational?

Dave, all hail Shannon
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-07-18 23:52:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by -dsr-
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by -dsr-
On 7/18/2018 8:27 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by David DeLaney
Yes, okay, I'll throw this fact into my tipping mental
balance. I am still unhappy about the imminent death of
MMPBs (film at $11), but also about the "ebooks are priced
at the most expensive physical version" paradigm. Rant
available on request.
There are many things to object to in the way that ebooks
are made and sold. But royalties to authors isn't generally
one of them. (And when it is, it's not ebooks that are the
problem, it's publishers who screwe everybody in every way
at every opportunity. And that's like complaining that grass
is green and water is wet.)
Can we complain about the water being green and grass being
wet?
Certainly, but to return it to sfnal complaints, really
efficient photosynthesizers ought to be black.
-dsr-
But no sunlight would be left for global warming then !
Thermodynamics: we have previously established you don't
understand it.
There are a lot things Lynn doesn't understand, but he's infinitely
smarter than Alan Baker.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
J. Clarke
2018-07-20 02:40:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 16:39:13 -0400, -dsr-
Post by -dsr-
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by -dsr-
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by David DeLaney
Yes, okay, I'll throw this fact into my tipping mental balance.
I am still unhappy about the imminent death of MMPBs (film at
$11), but also about the "ebooks are priced at the most
expensive physical version" paradigm. Rant available on request.
There are many things to object to in the way that ebooks are made
and sold. But royalties to authors isn't generally one of them. (And
when it is, it's not ebooks that are the problem, it's publishers who
screwe everybody in every way at every opportunity. And that's like
complaining that grass is green and water is wet.)
Can we complain about the water being green and grass being wet?
Certainly, but to return it to sfnal complaints, really efficient
photosynthesizers ought to be black.
-dsr-
But no sunlight would be left for global warming then !
Thermodynamics: we have previously established you don't understand it.
Thermodynamics is not the same as heat transfer. Global warming is
about heat transfer.
h***@gmail.com
2018-07-20 02:45:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 16:39:13 -0400, -dsr-
Post by -dsr-
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by -dsr-
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by David DeLaney
Yes, okay, I'll throw this fact into my tipping mental balance.
I am still unhappy about the imminent death of MMPBs (film at
$11), but also about the "ebooks are priced at the most
expensive physical version" paradigm. Rant available on request.
There are many things to object to in the way that ebooks are made
and sold. But royalties to authors isn't generally one of them. (And
when it is, it's not ebooks that are the problem, it's publishers who
screwe everybody in every way at every opportunity. And that's like
complaining that grass is green and water is wet.)
Can we complain about the water being green and grass being wet?
Certainly, but to return it to sfnal complaints, really efficient
photosynthesizers ought to be black.
-dsr-
But no sunlight would be left for global warming then !
Thermodynamics: we have previously established you don't understand it.
Thermodynamics is not the same as heat transfer. Global warming is
about heat transfer.
"Thermodynamics is the branch of physics concerned with heat and temperature and their relation to energy and work."

"Atmospheric thermodynamics is the study of heat-to-work transformations (and their reverse) that take place in the earth's atmosphere and manifest as weather or climate. Atmospheric thermodynamics use the laws of classical thermodynamics, to describe and explain such phenomena as the properties of moist air, the formation of clouds, atmospheric convection, boundary layer meteorology, and vertical instabilities in the atmosphere. Atmospheric thermodynamic diagrams are used as tools in the forecasting of storm development. Atmospheric thermodynamics forms a basis for cloud microphysics and convection parameterizations used in numerical weather models and is used in many climate considerations, including convective-equilibrium climate models."
news{@bestley.co.uk (Mark Bestley)
2018-07-18 16:02:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Moriarty
Sufficiently intrigued by the concept, I bought a copy at my
local bricks-and-mortar SF bookshop for about $20.
[...]
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Moriarty
Given a book that sells for $20 (mmpb) or $12 (kindle edition),
I do not know how things work in Australia, but I do know U.S. and
British publishing customs. A mass-market paperback will normally
earn a royalty equivalent to 6%, 8%, or 10% of cover price; if this is
a beginning author she probably got 6%, so that $20.00 book earns her $1.20.
I'm unfamiliar with AU processes also, though I hear their prices are higher -
but twenty bucks for a MMPB ??! What's more than twice what they cost here!
Dave, what are they making you pay for generic hardbacks?
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
So you may see that in fact, authors often make more on an ebook than
on a paperback.
Yes, okay, I'll throw this fact into my tipping mental balance. I am still
unhappy about the imminent death of MMPBs (film at $11), but also about the
"ebooks are priced at the most expensive physical version" paradigm. Rant
available on request.
Where is that virtually all the ebook proces I see at at the lowest
physical version's price.
--
Mark
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
2018-07-20 01:23:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Moriarty
A question for our resident authors, or anyone else able to answer.
I recently read James Nicoll's review of Ruthanna Emrys' "Winter Tide", a sequel of sorts to HPL's classic tale "The Shadow Over Innsmouth", told from the point of view of one of the Deep Ones. Sufficiently intrigued by the concept, I bought a copy at my local bricks-and-mortar SF bookshop for about $20.
BUT
The kindle edition from Amazon is $12, so I could have saved a bit by getting it instead. I chose not to as: a) I wanted to support the local shop; b) I still like to read an actual paper book from time to time; and c) Amazon is geoblocking Australia so fuck them.
Given a book that sells for $20 (mmpb)
$20 Mass Market? My condolences.

With a large publisher, I get paid a percentage of the COVER price
(which for a MMPB is probably $8.99 these days). The percentage is
probably about 8 percent. So about 72 cents for the MMPB.

Percentage for kindle is higher, though it's still for me going to be
based on a MSRP that is in no way going to be 12 bucks if the MMPB is
out, more like 6 bucks. However, it's 25% of 6 dollars, or $1.50, so
obviously ebook is better.


Now, if it's a HARDCOVER the numbers change.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.dreamwidth.org
h***@gmail.com
2018-07-20 02:38:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Moriarty
A question for our resident authors, or anyone else able to answer.
I recently read James Nicoll's review of Ruthanna Emrys' "Winter Tide", a sequel of sorts to HPL's classic tale "The Shadow Over Innsmouth", told from the point of view of one of the Deep Ones. Sufficiently intrigued by the concept, I bought a copy at my local bricks-and-mortar SF bookshop for about $20.
BUT
The kindle edition from Amazon is $12, so I could have saved a bit by getting it instead. I chose not to as: a) I wanted to support the local shop; b) I still like to read an actual paper book from time to time; and c) Amazon is geoblocking Australia so fuck them.
Given a book that sells for $20 (mmpb)
$20 Mass Market? My condolences.
Did a quick check at one of the local stores, the cheapest non-sale item SF paperback I saw was AU$17.99, the most expensive AU$23.99, which is about US$17.63
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
With a large publisher, I get paid a percentage of the COVER price
(which for a MMPB is probably $8.99 these days). The percentage is
probably about 8 percent. So about 72 cents for the MMPB.
Percentage for kindle is higher, though it's still for me going to be
based on a MSRP that is in no way going to be 12 bucks if the MMPB is
out, more like 6 bucks. However, it's 25% of 6 dollars, or $1.50, so
obviously ebook is better.
Now, if it's a HARDCOVER the numbers change.
They really change in Australia as well, the last time I looked at Hardcover book prices locally they were around AU$50
Jaimie Vandenbergh
2018-07-20 19:06:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
$20 Mass Market? My condolences.
Did a quick check at one of the local stores, the cheapest non-sale item SF paperback I saw was AU$17.99, the most expensive AU$23.99, which is about US$17.63
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Now, if it's a HARDCOVER the numbers change.
They really change in Australia as well, the last time I looked at Hardcover book prices locally they were around AU$50
Is this one of those concerted efforts to make it economically unviable
to read, so the workers don't educate themselves and can be kept down
like the proles they are? You know, like the public school system in
America.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
"Hard as nails, hard as nails - So would you be if you lived one hundred
and eighty years on sunflower seeds and biscuit crumbs." - Polynesia
Dimensional Traveler
2018-07-20 19:44:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
$20 Mass Market? My condolences.
Did a quick check at one of the local stores, the cheapest non-sale item SF paperback I saw was AU$17.99, the most expensive AU$23.99, which is about US$17.63
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Now, if it's a HARDCOVER the numbers change.
They really change in Australia as well, the last time I looked at Hardcover book prices locally they were around AU$50
Is this one of those concerted efforts to make it economically unviable
to read, so the workers don't educate themselves and can be kept down
like the proles they are? You know, like the public school system in
America.
Not quite I suspect as the American public school system wants us to be
able to read the Bible. :P
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-07-20 19:57:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
$20 Mass Market? My condolences.
Did a quick check at one of the local stores, the cheapest
non-sale item SF paperback I saw was AU$17.99, the most
expensive AU$23.99, which is about US$17.63
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Now, if it's a HARDCOVER the numbers change.
They really change in Australia as well, the last time I
looked at Hardcover book prices locally they were around AU$50
Is this one of those concerted efforts to make it economically
unviable to read, so the workers don't educate themselves and
can be kept down like the proles they are? You know, like the
public school system in America.
Not quite I suspect as the American public school system wants
us to be able to read the Bible. :P
If you brought a Bible to a public school in California, they'd
prosecute you for a hate crime.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
J. Clarke
2018-07-21 13:14:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 20 Jul 2018 12:44:35 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
$20 Mass Market? My condolences.
Did a quick check at one of the local stores, the cheapest non-sale item SF paperback I saw was AU$17.99, the most expensive AU$23.99, which is about US$17.63
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Now, if it's a HARDCOVER the numbers change.
They really change in Australia as well, the last time I looked at Hardcover book prices locally they were around AU$50
Is this one of those concerted efforts to make it economically unviable
to read, so the workers don't educate themselves and can be kept down
like the proles they are? You know, like the public school system in
America.
Not quite I suspect as the American public school system wants us to be
able to read the Bible. :P
The American public school system seems more interested in teaching us
to pee on the Bible.
David DeLaney
2018-07-23 10:26:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Moriarty
Given a book that sells for $20 (mmpb)
$20 Mass Market? My condolences.
Did a quick check at one of the local stores, the cheapest non-sale item SF
paperback I saw was AU$17.99, the most expensive AU$23.99, which is about US
$17.63
and these are mass-market, not trade? Cuz those are TPB prices over here,
usually between about $13 and $18. Regardless of whether they had to use large
print AND double-space the text to get enough of it to fill all the pages, grr.

(Hint: if you have to do either of those to make your TPB not ridiculously
thin, =publish it in MMPB instead=. And not in that "one-half inch taller so
we can charge $2-$5 more" format either, that's a twisted nightmare from
marketing that only works for people who have less than a shelf of books in
their house and so don't have to worry about which ones can stack with which.)

Dave, apologies, my rant is leaking out
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Loading...