[subego]

That's sort of like saying Montana is geographically exposed to Mexico.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by subego 

That's sort of like saying Montana is geographically exposed to Mexico.

Huh? France was a lot closer to East Germany than that. The point is sound. France had to worry about a conventional invasion by the Soviet Union a lot more than the United States did.

[subego]

Okay. You got me. I picked Montana because it sounded funny.

Seriously though, as close as East Germany was, they'd have to march through West Germany to be in a position to move on France. By the time a Soviet tank somehow reached French soil, the star painted on it would stand for a loose confederacy of radioactive craters.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by subego 

Okay. You got me. I picked Montana because it sounded funny.

Seriously though, as close as East Germany was, they'd have to march through West Germany to be in a position to move on France. By the time a Soviet tank somehow reached French soil, the star painted on it would stand for a loose confederacy of radioactive craters.

That assumes that the United States would have resorted to a nuclear strike in the event that France faced an existential, conventional threat and seemed about to be overrun, which is exactly what the French doubted. And I can't say I blame them. It seems far from obvious that would have been the case. In the event of a conventional war in Europe, the French did not want to become a bargaining chip in the game of nuclear brinkmanship between the U.S. and the Soviets.

[subego]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

That assumes that the United States would have resorted to a nuclear strike in the event that France faced an existential, conventional threat and seemed about to be overrun, which is exactly what the French doubted. And I can't say I blame them. It seems far from obvious that would have been the case. In the event of a conventional war in Europe, the French did not want to become a bargaining chip in the game of nuclear brinkmanship between the U.S. and the Soviets.

I'm saying that while the fact we weren't willing to protect France may have been true, it's irrelevant for all intents and purposes, because we were willing to protect Germany with all the marbles.

[SpaceMonkey]

I think there would have been the same ambiguity about releasing nukes to defend West Germany too, so I don't understand your point.

[subego]

Every assessment of the situation I recall was that we go nuclear, or lose. The only question would be how long.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by subego 

Every assessment of the situation I recall was that we go nuclear, or lose. The only question would be how long.

In the context of MAD, "winning" in that scenario means the probable deaths of tens of millions of Americans, so it's understandable if our allies pondered a scenario where the United States would effectively choose to lose.

Again, I'm not saying it is likely. Just that it entered into the picture and therefore, it could be said that outsized U.S. investments in deterrence partly failed.

[subego]

C'mon, isn't there just a little smirk on your face when you propose the Soviets would be all primed to charge into the Fulda Gap, but think twice because France might nuke them?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by subego 

C'mon, isn't there just a little smirk on your face when you propose the Soviets would be all primed to charge into the Fulda Gap, but think twice because France might nuke them?

I'm not sure about the Fulda Gap, but if, say, they were poised to overwhelm France itself it is conceivable they would think twice if France declared a nuclear first-use policy (assuming France's nukes were still intact at this point). French statements in the '60s and '70s essentially drew that line in the sand already, making the point that the only credible deterrence for a country like France's "scale" was nuclear, and they backed that up with significant short-range mobile nuclear forces near their front lines. Their goal at the outset of their nuclear program was to make sure they could kill more Russians than the entire population of France, and thus Russia would always have more to lose.

[subego]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I'm not sure about the Fulda Gap, but if, say, they were poised to overwhelm France itself it is conceivable they would think twice if France declared a nuclear first-use policy (assuming France's nukes were still intact at this point).

The Soviets couldn't go into West Germany without facing the very real possibility America's response would be to unleash its full nuclear arsenal.

If the Soviets felt ready for that, I don't think there's any deterrent the French could have brought to the table.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by subego 

The Soviets couldn't go into West Germany without facing the very real possibility America's response would be to unleash its full nuclear arsenal.

If the Soviets felt ready for that, I don't think there's any deterrent the French could have brought to the table

Do you actually think that's what we would have done? If you have any doubt at all (and I do), you must assume there would have been doubt on the Soviet end as well, raising the possibility that at some point they might take the risk and decide (whether correctly or erroneously) that no, America would not respond in that way. Obviously this never happened. But at the time, at the very least it forced national security strategists on all sides to ponder a scenario where it did, in order to determine the responses available to them. That's what the French had to do. And it seems obvious in retrospect, and from statements at the time, that they decided that they could not count on an American nuclear strike in response to an existential-but-conventional threat to Western Europe. Ironically, this decision could only have increased the doubt in Soviet planners' minds, witnessing this split in NATO, about whether the U.S. would have gone nuclear to defend France, making French concerns kind of self-fulfilling.

But even if you don't buy that they would have come to that conclusion, the point is that the existence of an independent French nuclear deterrent weakens the case that there was a common perception that America would use all available force to defend Europe, given that a key ally devoted such resources to shoring up a perceived insecurity. This means that, to some degree, U.S. military spending, to the degree that it was aimed at "Keeping Europe from tearing itself a new asshole every 25 years" by offering a big comfy security umbrella, was not well spent. If you imagine that every unit of national defense spending translates into some amount of total "deterrence" achieved by the allies, France's nuclear program effectively represents over-paying for the amount of deterrence achieved. In other words, France and the United States could have spent fewer total national defense funds to achieve a similar level of deterrence if only we had a higher level of confidence in each others' reactions to the imagined threat.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Again, I do not disagree with you that the United States would have done everything it could to defend Europe.



But that's exactly the point. The French wanted their own nuclear weapons under their control because of the combination of 1) national prestige and 2) they did not feel that the U.S. controlled nuclear deterrent was sufficient. They foresaw a situation where France, geographically exposed to Soviet attack, could be essentially held hostage to the desire of the United States and the Soviet Union to avoid an all-out nuclear exchange.

The Brits were hip-deep in the Manhattan project until 1946 when Congress unilaterally blocked their access to information. So they went ahead and built their own program and their own weapons. It took the French a bit longer because they were not involved in Manhattan. But de Gaulle wanted to be given weapons. Prestige? Sure, but where were French researchers when we started the Manhattan project? Not in the U.S., and not even on the list of "people who know something about nuclear science" that was cherry-picked to staff the research. So the Western nuclear weapon powers, the U.S. and the UK told de Gaulle bluntly that they would protect France, but there was no free lunch. There were some issues about how "trustworthy" some elements of post war France were, but it was mainly an issue of "if you want your own bomb, build one yourself."

[subego]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Do you actually think that's what we would have done? If you have any doubt at all (and I do), you must assume there would have been doubt on the Soviet end as well, raising the possibility that at some point they might take the risk and decide (whether correctly or erroneously) that no, America would not respond in that way.

We're talking about two different things. You're saying the Soviets may believe an assault on Western Europe wouldn't draw a nuclear response. I'm saying that even if the Soviets believe that, they'd still prepare for it. They'd be insane not to.

From there, I'm saying if you consider yourself prepared for an American nuclear response, you're certainly prepared for a French one.

You also mentioned the French claim was to kill more Soviets with their nukes than there are French people, making it not worth it to the Soviets. Soviet doctrine was based on not valuing Soviet personnel on a one-to-one basis with the enemy.

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

But even if you don't buy that they would have come to that conclusion, the point is that the existence of an independent French nuclear deterrent weakens the case that there was a common perception that America would use all available force to defend Europe, given that a key ally devoted such resources to shoring up a perceived insecurity. This means that, to some degree, U.S. military spending, to the degree that it was aimed at "Keeping Europe from tearing itself a new asshole every 25 years" by offering a big comfy security umbrella, was not well spent. If you imagine that every unit of national defense spending translates into some amount of total "deterrence" achieved by the allies, France's nuclear program effectively represents over-paying for the amount of deterrence achieved. In other words, France and the United States could have spent fewer total national defense funds to achieve a similar level of deterrence if only we had a higher level of confidence in each others' reactions to the imagined threat.

Why is the French nuclear program defensive and not offensive? Beyond selling the technology to people who probably shouldn't have it, the main result has been France gaining (and using) the ability to affect the Eastern/Western bloc dynamic.

To put it another way, France as a nuclear power has a track record of being mighty pissy with us, its "key ally".


Edit: very much enjoying the debate BTW.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

The Brits were hip-deep in the Manhattan project until 1946 when Congress unilaterally blocked their access to information. So they went ahead and built their own program and their own weapons. It took the French a bit longer because they were not involved in Manhattan. But de Gaulle wanted to be given weapons. Prestige? Sure, but where were French researchers when we started the Manhattan project? Not in the U.S., and not even on the list of "people who know something about nuclear science" that was cherry-picked to staff the research. So the Western nuclear weapon powers, the U.S. and the UK told de Gaulle bluntly that they would protect France, but there was no free lunch. There were some issues about how "trustworthy" some elements of post war France were, but it was mainly an issue of "if you want your own bomb, build one yourself."

Right. But I'm going back to why they wanted them in the first place.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by subego 

We're talking about two different things. You're saying the Soviets may believe an assault on Western Europe wouldn't draw a nuclear response. I'm saying that even if the Soviets believe that, they'd still prepare for it. They'd be insane not to.

From there, I'm saying if you consider yourself prepared for an American nuclear response, you're certainly prepared for a French one.

Right. I'm not sure "prepared for" is the right word, though, since, in a war-fighting sense, there was not much to do to prepare for a US-Soviet nuclear exchange in the late 1960s/early '70s. It would have been mutually devastating. Deterrence is not about preparedness, it's about the credibility of the response itself. It's about the strength of the belief in that response occurring in the first place. In the imagined scenario, one of the conditions for the Soviet attack is that, for whatever reason, they do not believe the Americans' response will be nuclear (deterrence has failed). The French goal in that scenario was to make the Soviets believe that the French response will be nuclear.

You also mentioned the French claim was to kill more Soviets with their nukes than there are French people, making it not worth it to the Soviets. Soviet doctrine was based on not valuing Soviet personnel on a one-to-one basis with the enemy.

I don't know much about that area. Was that a doctrine specific to military combat, or their nuclear doctrine? My point about the French attitude was more to illustrate the fact that they had a security anxiety with respect to their conventional forces that needed to be satisfied by a nuclear deterrent (similar to Russia today). The number of nuclear devices required to inflict catastrophic damage on the enemy population is so relatively small that the specifics about populations are a bit irrelevant, IMO.

Why is the French nuclear program defensive and not offensive? Beyond selling the technology to people who probably shouldn't have it, the main result has been France gaining (and using) the ability to affect the Eastern/Western bloc dynamic.

To put it another way, France as a nuclear power has a track record of being mighty pissy with us, its "key ally".

Sure, it could be both offensive and defensive. I don't believe that motivated the beginnings of their nuclear program, though.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Sealobo 

The US has been ignoring europe for quite a while now. They only matters when the US want "allies" for helping (bombing) out some middle east countries.

We ignore them because they're actually staying out of trouble, for once. It won't stay that way forever, though. That's why we keep enough arms there to level the place, if we need to.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Am I the only one who thinks the internet is fast enough already? I don't think bandwidth has been my limiting factor at any point in the last 5 years.

^ This has been about the only agreeable statement made in this thread.

The "slow internet" complaint is generally lodged by those who dislike large broadband providers because they're cigar-chomping rich people. They believe the cigar-chomping politicians in government would be much more in touch with the internets and will manage infrastructure and traffic more effectively and fairly. My connection is plenty fast enough for anyone not mired in illegal downloads and my availability/uptime is through the roof. YTD, always there, always working, always fast, 24/7.

[subego]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Right. I'm not sure "prepared for" is the right word, though, since, in a war-fighting sense, there was not much to do to prepare for a US-Soviet nuclear exchange in the late 1960s/early '70s. It would have been mutually devastating. Deterrence is not about preparedness, it's about the credibility of the response itself. It's about the strength of the belief in that response occurring in the first place. In the imagined scenario, one of the conditions for the Soviet attack is that, for whatever reason, they do not believe the Americans' response will be nuclear (deterrence has failed). The French goal in that scenario was to make the Soviets believe that the French response will be nuclear.

I don't want to seem contrary here, but while one can argue the US may not have responded to a Soviet invasion with nukes, I don't see how it could have ever passed that point. Maybe was the best they could hope for, and maybe is just as good as yes when it comes to WMD.

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I don't know much about that area. Was that a doctrine specific to military combat, or their nuclear doctrine?

It's was most notable as a combat doctrine, but seemed to my untrained eye to get applied to most everything the Soviets did. Their population was an expendable resource.

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

My point about the French attitude was more to illustrate the fact that they had a security anxiety with respect to their conventional forces that needed to be satisfied by a nuclear deterrent (similar to Russia today). The number of nuclear devices required to inflict catastrophic damage on the enemy population is so relatively small that the specifics about populations are a bit irrelevant, IMO.

Sure, it could be both offensive and defensive. I don't believe that motivated the beginnings of their nuclear program, though.

I'm not so sure. I certainly wouldn't take what the French said at the time at face value. As I said earlier, I don't think the French would have dropped out of NATO unless they were 100% sure NATO would still cover their back. If the French really felt they had anything to worry about, they would have stayed in and grumbled quietly about it like everyone else in NATO.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by subego 

As I said earlier, I don't think the French would have dropped out of NATO unless they were 100% sure NATO would still cover their back. If the French really felt they had anything to worry about, they would have stayed in and grumbled quietly about it like everyone else in NATO.

I don't accept that inaction is the best indicator of dissatisfaction, but it's a good point. Even when France had withdrawn its forces from NATO command, there were still negotiations (kept secret at the time, at France's insistence) for how French forces would be integrated in the event that war broke out.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

^ This has been about the only agreeable statement made in this thread.

The "slow internet" complaint is generally lodged by those who dislike large broadband providers because they're cigar-chomping rich people. They believe the cigar-chomping politicians in government would be much more in touch with the internets and will manage infrastructure and traffic more effectively and fairly. My connection is plenty fast enough for anyone not mired in illegal downloads and my availability/uptime is through the roof. YTD, always there, always working, always fast, 24/7.

Or maybe it's only made by those who have been to, say, Hong Kong or Tokyo, or cities where 30Mbps internet is generally free.

[Uncle Skeleton]

There is no free lunch. What are the real costs to taxpayers of that service?

Also, how much bandwidth do you really use when it's "free?" My comcast service tops 30 Mbps (down), and the marginal cost to me is free, and I still don't use anywhere close to that. My usage this month was 70 GB, of a nominal allowance of 250 GB.

If anything, my personality dictates I "use it up" since I paid for it, yet I can't find enough crap to download in order to do that. This indicates to me that what we have isn't a problem.

[imitchellg5]

If the lines are there, how much should it cost the end user? Not that it matters, because most US internet tops out at what is the baseline of many other countries. I don't like the "it's good enough" attitude. That's how we ended up with automakers in the hole.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

If the lines are there, how much should it cost the end user?

Once the R D is done and the code is written, how much should a copy of OS X cost the end user?

Not that it matters, because most US internet tops out at what is the baseline of many other countries.

No, this is exactly what I'm disputing*. If I only use 10% of my 30Mbps, why would I care if there are even faster plans? Isn't this like throwing money away making more and mort nuclear weapons, after we already have enough to destroy the world 10 times over (to use an example reminiscent of the OP)?

I repeat my real question to you, how much of the 30 do you actually use? If you please, I really would like an answer. Or is it just about bragging rights?

*being which end of what does "not really matter"

edit: grrr... stupid ampersands....

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Once the R D is done and the code is written, how much should a copy of OS X cost the end user?

$29 seems quite reasonable, in the light of Windows being hundreds of dollars depending on what version you have.

No, this is exactly what I'm disputing*. If I only use 10% of my 30Mbps, why would I care if there are even faster plans? Isn't this like throwing money away making more and mort nuclear weapons, after we already have enough to destroy the world 10 times over (to use an example reminiscent of the OP)?

I repeat my real question to you, how much of the 30 do you actually use? If you please, I really would like an answer. Or is it just about bragging rights?

*being which end of what does "not really matter"

edit: grrr... stupid ampersands....

I have the feeling that you haven't actually used anything beyond 30 Mbps. My school has 108 Mbps wireless and nearly 400 Mbps wired, and I can tell you that it's quite a different experience vs. even my 40 Mbps home connection. You load videos without buffering, I can stream 720p Al Jazeera, etc. It's not that 30 Mbps is useless, but why would you not want to have a better experience for a reasonable price? Why would I pay $50 a month for 30 Mbps when I know people in Bulgaria who pay $10 a month for 150 Mbps? Why can't we have nice things too?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

$29 seems quite reasonable, in the light of Windows being hundreds of dollars depending on what version you have.

Well I'm glad to hear you say that because my internet bill is only $25. Seems quite reasonable right?

I have the feeling that you haven't actually used anything beyond 30 Mbps. My school has 108 Mbps wireless and nearly 400 Mbps wired, and I can tell you that it's quite a different experience vs. even my 40 Mbps home connection. You load videos without buffering, I can stream 720p Al Jazeera, etc.

I do all that stuff through Netflix on 30 Mbps (and it doesn't even use that up). What bitrate are these videos you watch? I have a hard time believing they're more than 30 Mbps when even DVDs aren't that high. What is the actual sustained throughput that enters your computer, in real life? Do you even know? I wager a dollar it's not over 30 Mbps, even if you have 400 Mbps available sitting idle.

It's not that 30 Mbps is useless, but why would you not want to have a better experience for a reasonable price? Why would I pay $50 a month for 30 Mbps when I know people in Bulgaria who pay $10 a month for 150 Mbps? Why can't we have nice things too?

Why complain about something that is better than necessary already? Why expand government's reach and raise taxes to get us something that will simply go to waste?

What you're asking for is analogous to the government giving iPads to every blind American for the low cost of $100 each. It may sound like "more bang for your buck" than $500 each, the only problem is they would go to waste. It's the same with 400 Mbps internet, it's stupid to insist on more idle bandwidth when what we have already isn't even being used. Even a child knows this lesson... "your eyes are bigger than your stomach"?

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Well I'm glad to hear you say that because my internet bill is only $25. Seems quite reasonable right?

Uh, what? How can you even make that parallel? So if I can afford a $400k house, I should have a $400k car too?

I do all that stuff through Netflix on 30 Mbps (and it doesn't even use that up). What bitrate are these videos you watch? I have a hard time believing they're more than 30 Mbps when even DVDs aren't that high. What is the actual sustained throughput that enters your computer, in real life? Do you even know? I wager a dollar it's not over 30 Mbps, even if you have 400 Mbps available sitting idle.

That's pedantic. I have no idea, it's the live stream on YouTube. It won't stream 720p at home, but it will at school. It's just an example.

Why complain about something that is better than necessary already? Why expand government's reach and raise taxes to get us something that will simply go to waste?

Because the United States and Barack Obama claim that we live in the most technologically advanced country in the world, but we don't.

What you're asking for is analogous to the government giving iPads to every blind American for the low cost of $100 each. It may sound like "more bang for your buck" than $500 each, the only problem is they would go to waste. It's the same with 400 Mbps internet, it's stupid to insist on more idle bandwidth when what we have already isn't even being used. Even a child knows this lesson... "your eyes are bigger than your stomach"?

I'm not saying the government has to do it.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Uh, what? How can you even make that parallel? So if I can afford a $400k house, I should have a $400k car too?

Now that's pedantic!
Anyway the point was that the price reflects sunk costs. The point before that was how much did/do the Japanese and Hong Kong governments spend for this free lunch? (both were evaded, but not forgotten)

That's pedantic. I have no idea, it's the live stream on YouTube. It won't stream 720p at home, but it will at school. It's just an example.

No, whether or not we can find a way to make use of what we already have before whining about needing more of it is not pedantic. Here's a (better) counter-example: I just watched a 1080p movie trailer (harry potter), it started playing immediately, it was fully downloaded after 1/6th of the play duration (so it's already about 5x faster than necessary), and the average download speed was only 3 MBps (24 Mbps). The video was flawless. Maybe it's your computer and not your bandwidth that is limiting. Finding out what to actually fix before trying to fix it is not pedantic, it's common sense.

BTW, I found that netflix streaming struggles on my netbook at home but not on the same netbook at work. The difference turned out to be my home network uses encryption, and that was enough to tip the scales.

Because the United States and Barack Obama claim that we live in the most technologically advanced country in the world, but we don't.

So... bragging rights.

I'm not saying the government has to do it.

Well I did think that's what you meant (that is certainly what was said in the post you replied to), but in retrospect it doesn't matter; subsidizing proverbial iPads for the blind is a waste no matter who is pulling the strings.

Wow did this thread ever change course, eh?

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Now that's pedantic!
Anyway the point was that the price reflects sunk costs. The point before that was how much did/do the Japanese and Hong Kong governments spend for this free lunch? (both were evaded, but not forgotten)

I have no idea.

No, whether or not we can find a way to make use of what we already have before whining about needing more of it is not pedantic. Here's a (better) counter-example: I just watched a 1080p movie trailer (harry potter), it started playing immediately, it was fully downloaded after 1/6th of the play duration (so it's already about 5x faster than necessary), and the average download speed was only 3 MBps (24 Mbps). The video was flawless. Maybe it's your computer and not your bandwidth that is limiting. Finding out what to actually fix before trying to fix it is not pedantic, it's common sense.

How is it my computer? Why would my MacBook Pro become magically slower at school than at home?

BTW, I found that netflix streaming struggles on my netbook at home but not on the same netbook at work. The difference turned out to be my home network uses encryption, and that was enough to tip the scales.

My home and school network are both using WPA2.

Well I did think that's what you meant (that is certainly what was said in the post you replied to), but in retrospect it doesn't matter; subsidizing proverbial iPads for the blind is a waste no matter who is pulling the strings.

Wow did this thread ever change course, eh?

I think you're still thinking I mean the government should give us all free and fast internet. What I'm saying is how come innovation for internet has stopped in the US? We have wireless carriers shouting on about "4G", yet Comcast is still more than happy to keep everyone at the same 30 Mbps. It's not going to be long before we have 34 Mbps HSPA+ phones. So, in fact, I'm wondering why the private sector refuses to innovate on a level that is seen in other countries. BTW, in my example for Bulgaria, it's actually a US company that is installing high-speed internet and setting up proxy businesses to sell the service, not the government. So why won't that same company invest in US infrastructure?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

I think you're still thinking I mean the government should give us all free and fast internet. What I'm saying is how come innovation for internet has stopped in the US? We have wireless carriers shouting on about "4G", yet Comcast is still more than happy to keep everyone at the same 30 Mbps. It's not going to be long before we have 34 Mbps HSPA+ phones. So, in fact, I'm wondering why the private sector refuses to innovate on a level that is seen in other countries. BTW, in my example for Bulgaria, it's actually a US company that is installing high-speed internet and setting up proxy businesses to sell the service, not the government. So why won't that same company invest in US infrastructure?

You act as if Broadband providers in the US aren't investing in US infrastructure.

• As of 2010, the US has 81 million wireline broadband connections compared to China's 94 million and Japan's 30 million.
• The US, Canada, and Mexico have connected 27% more users with fiber than all countries in Western, Central, and Eastern Europe combined.
• The World Economic Forum's "Global Information Technology Report" ranks the US in the top 5 for Networked readiness.
• US Broadband providers have invested over $193 billion in Broadband networks over the past 5 years.

Almost all of the measurements you see re: the US vs other OECD countries is speed and accessibility. The challenges faced in the US broadband market include the incredibly sparse nature of our population with most citing "no need" or "no computer" as reasons for not using broadband over the price of broadband service.

There is more to broadband than just speed including QoS and uptime/availability. If you've truly been to Hong Kong as you say, well then you know exactly what I'm talking about. Even a 100M connection is meaningless if it's mired in routing errors, jitter, packet-loss, signal-to-noise, offline altogether, or downed for continuous maintenance.

Now... back to your regularly-scheduled BT.

[imitchellg5]

I didn't say I've been to Hong Kong... but I've seen their speeds.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

I have no idea.

Well it's not zero, I can tell you that much

How is it my computer? Why would my MacBook Pro become magically slower at school than at home?

I already gave you one possibility, another is that your home network is being hacked, or your router is throttling you. Have you speed tested your home network? I just tested again, and I'm getting 30.40 Mbps downlink. If you're not really getting 30 in real life after all, that would explain your false perception of how slow it is.

Here's a question for you, how can youtube possibly be sending out more than 30 Mbps? That's just ridiculous. 30 Mbps is enough to transfer a full bluray movie in real time (IOW no buffering delay). And you know the streaming providers use more compression that bluray discs, even at 1080p (which remember is still larger than your example). The only physical way it's too slow is if something in your home network is preventing you from seeing the full 30 Mbps in the first place.

I think you're still thinking I mean the government should give us all free and fast internet. What I'm saying is how come innovation for internet has stopped in the US?

Because necessity is the mother of invention. Spending resources bumping Bulgarians up from 100 Mbps to 400, when they only make use of 10 in the first place, is a waste. That's why you see governments doing it instead of businesses, it's because businesses know better than to spend money on something that is totally unnecessary.

Not that US broadband innovation has stopped, but to the extent that it's not keeping up with your expectations, that is the reason.

[imitchellg5]

Did you even read what I wrote? Bulgaria's government isn't doing the upgrading, it's a US company starting other companies in Bulgaria who are putting in the infrastructure.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Oops. Well I still recommend you check your home network performance, because if you can't play a youtube off the bandwidth sufficient to stream a top-bitrate bluray, there is something seriously wrong with your hardware.

[imitchellg5]

Here's the thing: (the super off-topic thing): 30 Mbps doesn't mean you'll ever consistently be streaming 30 Mbps. It's a burst speed, what you'll get in the best-case. When you have 100 Mbps, it's not the fact that you'll get 100 Mbps that's good, it's the fact that you'll consistently have a faster connection than whatever your older connection was. And yes, I think 30 Mbps is fine in 2011. BUT, everything we have is internet-connected. Phones, game consoles, computers, tablets, TVs, Blu Ray players, etc. All this stuff keeps popping up with with internet connectivity, but what will happen if our speeds don't increase? Microsoft is trying to get people to stream 1080p content that they own from the cloud, but what about when we start seeing 4k content? (Mitsubishi say it's not far around the corner) I see this disconnect between the growth of technology and the lack of change with internet in the US.

At speedtest.net I just got 28.5 Mbps (I can't see how to copy the link in the new version?). My ISP is Comcast, router is latest AirPort Express.

[Uncle Skeleton]

But network speed has caught up faster than video (content availability or playback ability). In the age of DVDs, it was unthinkable to be able to stream a DVD in real time, but now you can stream 1080p at 6x real time. What makes you think that they wouldn't step up just as soon as the demand was there?

Besides which, compression performance is also increasing. By the time anyone cares about higher def (and let's be honest, most people still don't even care about high def yet), we don't even know that the bandwidth requirement will be higher than it is now.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Besides which, compression performance is also increasing.

+1

Better compression has far more intrinsic value than wider bandwidth.