[Info-vax] Not all HP jobs have gone to India!

[Johnny Billquist]

On 2010-11-14 17:02, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> In article<iboglk$4u6$1 at Iltempo.Update.UU.SE>, Johnny Billquist<bqt at softjar.se>  writes:
>> {...snip...}
>> You'd loose that bet. I don't even live in Scandinavia anymore. Live in
>> Switzerland nowadays. Was in the US last time in June.
>>
>>>
>>> The telco and internet market in the US has to cover a SIGNIFICANTLY
>>> LARGER area than in most other countries.  According to Arne's links,
>>> you should be shitting on Switzerland.
>>
>> You should have read Arne's links a little better. The area is bigger,
>> and the population is larger.
>> The population density in Scandinavia is in fact significantly lower
>> than in the US.
>
> Scandanavia is bigger than the US?

Nope. But there are almost no people there, so the density is lower. 
(The total population of all of Scandinavia is something like 25 
million, but it's a lot of land.) The US is literally packed with 
people, compared to Scandinavia.
Why don't you actually read the article? It would explain a lot to you 
without me having to repeat it here the whole time.

> ~820K sq km is bigger than ~9.8M sq km?  (contiguous states 8M sq km)

What does actual size have to do with it. If you have hardly any people, 
it will still be more expensive to put down the wires, in relation to 
how much money you can expect to get back.
Or put another way, each km of wire will have to be paid by fewer 
people. Or I can put it in any other number of ways as well, if you 
prefer. The end result still being that it is more expensive to build 
the infrastructure in Scandinavia than it is in the US.

>>> Mine is 100mbps @ $100/month or 1mbps @ $1/month  which is SIGNIFICANTLY
>>> cheaper than the Arne's chart's 1mbps @ $3.33/month.
>>
>> Aren's links was to the state in 2007.
>> As I pointed out, if you had just read 10 words more, the price in
>> Sweden equates to about $40. Which is significantly cheaper than the US.
>> And that was without even trying to hunt for a good deal.
>
> With a block of static IPs???  My rate includes a cisco router; in fact,
> I got 2 in the deal.

Yes, you can get static, public IP addresses if you want to. I used to 
have that when I lived there (and that was about 10 years ago).

> Show me a cost table with rates and static IP and equipment.

Equipment? When I checked this last, Bredbandsbolaget actually got you a 
RJ45 connection in where you lived, and then you could hook up whatever 
you wanted.

But the really cool places in Sweden more or less offer you black fiber. 
They you make a deal with any ISP you choose, and they can offer the 
routing, bandwidth out, and possible other services all in full 
competition. The speed from the ISP to your house is not an issue. The 
ISPs connections to the rest of the world is more relevant.

(There is a reason why places like The Pirate Bay sprung up in Sweden. 
We've had a lot of network bandwidth there for quite a while...)

Actually, I got my first 10Mbit/s RJ45 connection while I was studying 
in Uppsala in 1994, in my apartment there. That should put some 
perspective on it. (Yes, 10 Mbit/s both down and up, 16 years ago.)

Anyway, I did a little hunting around. How is this for a good deal:

100 Mbit/s - SEK 69/month.
Fixed IP - an addition SEK 30/month.

Total cost - SEK 99/month. That comes out as about $13 per month, for 
100 Mbit/s and a fixed IP address. You'll find the information at 
http://www.tele2.se/bredband/via-stadsnat.html. And there are no traffic 
limits, and you can set up any services you want.

It's in Swedish, but I'm sure you can find some translation service to 
get an acceptable translation to english. Now, can we lay this question 
to rest? Or do you want me to try and find something even cheaper?


> One of my good friends (spent a week in my home this Spring) lives in the
> south of England (Romsey).  He has stated to me that he couldn't get any-
> where near the bandwidth for the prices we pay here in the states.  Maybe
> you and JF need to bark at the Unicorn and the Lion instead of at the Bald
> Eagle?

England is another country. I can't speak for how the situation looks 
there. I can speak for how it is in Sweden and Switzerland, and Sweden 
is definitely better than the US, while Switzerland comes out about 
even, if I compare what you write with what I'm offered here.

>> You are in fact a little behind Swizerland now (continuing to slip, as
>> the report Arne referred to mentions was already ongoing in 2007).
>> I just the last month received the new offer from Cablecom in
>> Switzerland, where I can now get 100 Mb/s for CHF 85, which pretty much
>> translates to $85.
>
> With a block of static IPs???

In Sweden, yes. In Switzerland, I don't know. I haven't tried finding 
out. But since the price in Switzerland is lower than the US now, I 
think that I could go as far as calling it a draw.
However, I know that my IP address I have currently haven't changed in 
the last five months. But for my current subscription, it is dynamic.

You just seem to not be able to accept, and believe that the grass is 
actually greener somewhere else on this topic, no matter how much I'm 
telling you. Instead you insist on not reading parts, ignoring parts, 
and trying to find explanations that would nullify what I write.

>>>> and good regulations. That translates to less than $40. (And actually,
>>>> that was just looking at the first ISP that popped into my mind:
>>>> Bredbandsbolaget, if I start hunting around, I might be able to find it
>>>> even cheaper.)
>>>>
>>>> And don't even get me started on mobile phones, or broadband access
>>>> through the mobile phone...
>>>
>>> I love my Sprint EVDO.  I traveled 2 summers ago across Pennsylvania (a
>>> 400 mile trek from my door) through 6 mountain tunnels averaging 1 mile
>>> and listening to 128K streaming radio and I never missed a beat.  That
>>> I get for $60/month!  Worth it for the convenience of ubiquitous access.
>>
>> Do you think that's impressive? I'm used to have about 3 Mb/s on my
>> mobile phone. (Switzerland is really depressing.) And access just
>> anywhere I go, not just following highways.
>
> Last download rate test turned in about 5mpbs.  What is impressive is that
> I can drive and not lose ANY service.  You can't drive that far and stay in
> the same country.

Bah! 400 miles is not a problem in Sweden. That will about get you from 
Malmö to Stockholm, which means you still have about 1000 miles more you 
could travel if you wanted, without leaving Sweden, and going in a 
straight line. And not only would you have good connection all the way, 
you would also have it if you strayed off the main highways, and ended 
up in every smallville you could imagine.

Once more you actually don't know much about other countries, or more 
specifically any part of Scandinavia. Stop making silly claims that are 
so obviously wrong.

>>> Most places here in the US now have free internet access (even the cable
>>> cos have put up wireless access and, if you have an account, you get the
>>> wireless access).  When traveling Europe, I have to pay about $24/day to
>>> have internet access.  That's a deal???  NOT!  $24/day * 30days/month is
>>> $720/month... that my good man is excessive!
>>
>> Well, you should inform yourself a bit more. I definitely could not get
>> free internet access in most places in the US. Not even in San
>> Fransisco, where I spent two weeks. The Hotel had internet access, but
>> it was so bad and slow it was a joke, not working a lot of the time.
>
> I engineered a radio show at a music festival last summer from the lounge
> of a major chain hotel.  The idea was to tap into their existing internet.
> Their wiring closet looked like it was put together by blind plumbers and
> the entire hotel was still piped into an old DOCSIS-1 modem (a Motorola --
> I may have its model number somewhere because I looked it up for specs).
> Anyway, it was impossible to use this.  I wound up running an entire 3-day
> show via my Sprint EVDO.  It was able to sustain a 192K 24bit push to the
> replication servers with no losses.  Thus, hotels are NO gauge of internet
> quality.  I don't use most as they have hundreds of guests all sharing a
> single, more likely than not, NATted little pipe.  I also don't use them
> after being robbed of $300.00 for hotel internet in Montreal 2 years ago.
> So much for the $10/day -- it didn't apply if you stayed connected for the
> entire stay.  Hotels are NOT in the internet biz; they're in the "provide
> you with a bed for an exorbitant price" biz.

True. And there was absolutely no other wireless service to be found. I 
scanned plenty of times. And this in more or less the center of one of 
the major cities in the US. So I was just calling your claim of "most 
places in the US have free internet access" a bluff.

>> And I had the Bay Bridge outside my window.
>
> The Bay Bridge is nothing spectacular.  The Golden Gate is the much more
> impressive view.  San Francisco, it IS an expensive city; everything there
> is based upon supporting (or hiding) its itinerant waifs.  Did you take a
> pleasant evening stroll in its "tenderloin" while you where there? ;)

I was not mentioning it because of the view, but to make you understand 
that I was not sitting somewhere in some odd suburb out in nowhere, when 
I couldn't get any internet access.
The tenderloin is "interesting", but nothing bad happened to me when I 
was in there. Unless you count any number of beggars asking for money.

>> Going to the US is bad though, as they have created this wonderful
>> implied monopoly by using different incompatible frequencies and
>> technologies between all major carriers. So with my phone I can call
>> through AT&T or T-mobile, since they use GSM, but I can forget Sprint
>> which are stupid enough to run a totally different system.
>> But if I then want to surf, ST&T and T-mobile use different frequencies,
>> and manufacturers can't make phones that talk on both of those
>> frequencies, with AT&T appearantly being the big headache, so people
>>from just about anywhere in the world outside of the US have handsets
>> that can only talk with all operators outside the US, and only T-mobile
>> in the US.
>
> Believe what you believe.  The wife's quadband works here and there (.EU)
> and everywhere;  I don't use phones, let alone a cell phone... I hate the
> fucking things.

Quadband is actually referring to the frequencies used to make voice 
calls. Not data.
And yes, voice works just fine. High speed data is a totally different 
ballgame. And with todays smartphones, it is becoming a bigger issue.

>> And I won't even start talking about what the costs are...
>
> Hmm... I have 3G (and now 4G)... from Wiki (because I'm not hung up on all
> of the mobile phone jargon and technologies but if you'd like, I can ask a
> good friend and chief engineer at Quaalcom to comment here)
>
>
>     3G
>     From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>
>     International Mobile Telecommunications-2000 (IMT2000),
>     ---------------------------------------------
>     better known as 3G or 3rd Generation, is a generation of
>     standards for mobile phones and mobile telecommunications
>     ---------
>     services fulfilling specifications by the International
>                                               -------------
>     Telecommunication Union.
>     -----------------------
>     :
>     :
>
>     * the CDMA2000 system, first offered in 2002,
>     standardized by 3GPP2, used especially in North America and
>     South Korea, sharing infrastructure with the IS-95 2G
>     standard. The cell phones are typically CDMA2000 and IS-95
>     hybrids. The latest release EVDO Rev B offers peak rates of
>     14.7 Mbit/s downstreams.
> ---^^^^^^^^^^^

Ah. I bet you might be thinking of WiMAX, when you talk about 4G. A 
technology created in South Korea, with the largest network using the 
technology existing in Russia.

Also a direct competition with LTE, which is another 4G technology. 
Looks, if you read up on WiMAX on Wikipedia, as if WiMAX is going to be 
replaced by LTE on big markets. And LTE is already running in Sweden and 
Norway, with significantly higher speeds than 14.7 Mbit/s. You know, 
just reading through Wikipedia would give you most of this information 
without having to have this argument.

(Start reading on 4G on Wikipedia, and follow various links from there.)

>> Yeah, the US really rocks! It's not even a question of costs for
>> foreigners coming to the US, it is basically a scenario of "you'll be
>> lucky if it works at all".
>
> We should adopt your .EU power connectors too, I suppose?

What would those be? As far as I know, there are no standardized power 
connectors in the EU. Atleast not for wall plugs.
(Yes, there are a lot of things in the EU I could complain about, if you 
really want to know, but right now I was just trying to set you straight 
when you basically claimed that any country who could offer better 
internet connections, at lower prices, than the US, had to be BS and 
nonsense. I just showed you that this was, and is, not the case. Those 
countries actually do exist.)

Oh, and speaking of the EU... I don't even live in it. :-) I live in 
Switzerland.

> NONE of the, of course, has ANYTHING to do with the topic, HP, or VMS.  It
> was merely another hijacking of the newsgroup by JF to espouse US hatred.

True on the hijacking... This has nothing to do with VMS. We should 
stop. :-)

	Johnny

-- 
Johnny Billquist                  || "I'm on a bus
                                   ||  on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se             ||  Reading murder books
pdp is alive!                     ||  tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol