resolv.conf questions

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
71 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: resolv.conf questions

Colin Watson
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 09:01:22AM -0500, Wade Smart wrote:
> >>Statistically means numbers. Here they are:  https://broadbandnow.com/DSL 90% coverage...
> Im calling bs on this coverage. DSL may be offered 'virtually
> everywhere' but only in name. Between ill maintained lines, outdated
> and weathered lines, dsl isnt not a realistic option. This (my
> opinion) only applies to the density of cities where there are lots of
> potential customers for the phone company to target. This is not true
> outside of cities throughout the midwest. Not with DSL.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html
says that 82.3% of the US population is "urban".  I appreciate that that
can have a variety of meanings, but is it not nevertheless true that
most people in the US live in cities?  I think the 90% there is meant to
refer to population, not land area.

(Note, I'm not talking about fairness here, just about the current
figures.)

--
Colin Watson                                       [[hidden email]]

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: resolv.conf questions

Wade Smart-2
An, now that - I believe.
'urban'

--
Registered Linux User: #480675
Registered Linux Machine: #408606
Linux since June 2005

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: resolv.conf questions

Robert Heller
In reply to this post by Wade Smart-2
At Tue, 13 Aug 2019 09:01:22 -0500 "Ubuntu user technical support,  not for general discussions" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> >>Statistically means numbers. Here they are:  https://broadbandnow.com/DSL 90% coverage...
> Im calling bs on this coverage. DSL may be offered 'virtually
> everywhere' but only
> in name. Between ill maintained lines, outdated and weathered lines,
> dsl isnt not
> a realistic option. This (my opinion) only applies to the density of
> cities where there
> are lots of potential customers for the phone company to target. This
> is not true
> outside of cities throughout the midwest. Not with DSL.

DSL *maxes* at 3MB/Sec (this is the *technical* limitiation). DSL IS NOT
"Broadband" (as defined by the FCC -- Broadband is 25Mbits or greater). It
only works within 18,000 wire feet of the CO (assuming of course that the
copper is any good). Probably all CO's are DSL capable at this time -- so
what. This is meaningless for almost all *rural* areas, since most rural
customers are more the 18,000 wire feet from the CO and are are served by
"concentrators", most of which do not include DSLAMs (needed to support DSL).
DSL is actually obsolete techology and DSL *equipment* is no longer made. Oh,
and Verizon is phasing it out.

The *private* sector will only implement true broadband in places with a dense
enough population base (Comcast's rule-of-thumb is 15 houses per mile, the
other providers are probably similar). Oh, and then there will be a
"monopoly", where the population is pretty much at the mercy of the provider.
So even in the dense urban areas, what passes for Internet service is often
"crap" (by world standards). The USA has been "falling behind" for decades and
will likely continue to do so.

For areas of lower density, you are "out of luck" -- the *only* option will be
public funding, typically Municipally owned fiber optic networks. And that
requires a willingness to raise taxes...  But when the local population "bites
the bullet" and votes to raise the money, they end up with better service than
is available in the urban areas.




>

--
Robert Heller             -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software        -- Custom Software Services
http://www.deepsoft.com/  -- Linux Administration Services
[hidden email]       -- Webhosting Services
                                                                   

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: resolv.conf questions

Gene Heskett-2
In reply to this post by Colin Watson
On Tuesday 13 August 2019 11:18:06 Colin Watson wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 09:01:22AM -0500, Wade Smart wrote:
> > >>Statistically means numbers. Here they are:
> > >> https://broadbandnow.com/DSL 90% coverage...
> >
> > Im calling bs on this coverage. DSL may be offered 'virtually
> > everywhere' but only in name. Between ill maintained lines, outdated
> > and weathered lines, dsl isnt not a realistic option. This (my
> > opinion) only applies to the density of cities where there are lots
> > of potential customers for the phone company to target. This is not
> > true outside of cities throughout the midwest. Not with DSL.
>
> https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.ht
>ml says that 82.3% of the US population is "urban".  I appreciate that
> that can have a variety of meanings, but is it not nevertheless true
> that most people in the US live in cities?  I think the 90% there is
> meant to refer to population, not land area.
>
> (Note, I'm not talking about fairness here, just about the current
> figures.)
>
Your figures are a bit optimistic I think. Locally, see:
<https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/lewiscountywestvirginia>
At least 2 of those figures are fudged.  There are quite a few of
Cherokee descent here, I'd estimate closer 10+ percent, and the 67%
claimed as having broadband are probably closer to 45% since they can
get on the net, with a 56k modem that probably doesn't run at full
speed. I'm 11,000 feet from the CO & thats the ragged edge for dsl from
the CO so I didn't get 56k even on a copper dsl circuit. Now I have a
cable modem 10Mb down/2.5Mb up and can get gigabit both ways if I want
to pay for it.

> --
> Colin Watson                                      
> [[hidden email]]


Cheers, Gene Heskett
--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
 - Louis D. Brandeis
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: resolv.conf questions

Robert Heller
In reply to this post by Colin Watson
At Tue, 13 Aug 2019 16:18:06 +0100 "Ubuntu user technical support,  not for general discussions" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 09:01:22AM -0500, Wade Smart wrote:
> > >>Statistically means numbers. Here they are:  https://broadbandnow.com/DSL 90% coverage...
> > Im calling bs on this coverage. DSL may be offered 'virtually
> > everywhere' but only in name. Between ill maintained lines, outdated
> > and weathered lines, dsl isnt not a realistic option. This (my
> > opinion) only applies to the density of cities where there are lots of
> > potential customers for the phone company to target. This is not true
> > outside of cities throughout the midwest. Not with DSL.
>
> https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html
> says that 82.3% of the US population is "urban".  I appreciate that that
> can have a variety of meanings, but is it not nevertheless true that
> most people in the US live in cities?  I think the 90% there is meant to
> refer to population, not land area.

Because of how telecom works (or really does not work) in the USA, we (the
population of USA, urban or rural) are pretty much at the mercy of a *small
number* (4) of big telecoms, which have no motivation to bother to provide
anything like "world class" Internet service. They have the urban areas in
monopoly control and the rural areas are petty much completely out of the
picture.

https://billmoyers.com/segment/susan-crawford-on-why-u-s-internet-access-is-slow-costly-and-unfair/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xI847vQTto


>
> (Note, I'm not talking about fairness here, just about the current
> figures.)
>

--
Robert Heller             -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software        -- Custom Software Services
http://www.deepsoft.com/  -- Linux Administration Services
[hidden email]       -- Webhosting Services
                                                                         

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: resolv.conf questions

Wade Smart-2
In reply to this post by Gene Heskett-2
We are WAY WAY off topic here - and Im totally at fault too
for replying.. we need a side list for this :D HAHA

The whole private to public is a mess with internet and
penetration.

https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadblocks/
--
Registered Linux User: #480675
Registered Linux Machine: #408606
Linux since June 2005

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: resolv.conf questions

Gilles Gravier-2
In reply to this post by Robert Heller


Le mar. 13 août 2019 à 17:57, Robert Heller <[hidden email]> a écrit :
At Tue, 13 Aug 2019 09:01:22 -0500 "Ubuntu user technical support,  not for general discussions" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>

DSL *maxes* at 3MB/Sec (this is the *technical* limitiation). DSL IS NOT
"Broadband" (as defined by the FCC -- Broadband is 25Mbits or greater). It
only works within 18,000 wire feet of the CO (assuming of course that the
copper is any good). Probably all CO's are DSL capable at this time -- so
what. This is meaningless for almost all *rural* areas, since most rural
customers are more the 18,000 wire feet from the CO and are are served by
"concentrators", most of which do not include DSLAMs (needed to support DSL).
DSL is actually obsolete techology and DSL *equipment* is no longer made. Oh,
and Verizon is phasing it out.


Nah. You've got it wrong. On the same cabling, my operator switched from DSL to VDSL (they just changed a board in their DSLAM, but nothing else) and the max VDSL speed is 5MB/SEc (actually 52 Mb/s). As specified here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VDSL

And yes that qualifies as broadband as it's significantly over 25 Mb/s... 

But true... you need to be close enough to the DSLAM...

Gilles 

--
Gilles Gravier - [hidden email]
Using Google Apps web mail

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: resolv.conf questions

Tom H-4
In reply to this post by Wade Smart-2
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 4:05 PM Wade Smart <[hidden email]> wrote:

>>>
>>> Statistically means numbers. Here they are:
>>> https://broadbandnow.com/DSL 90% coverage...
>
> Im calling bs on this coverage. DSL may be offered 'virtually
> everywhere' but only in name. Between ill maintained lines,
> outdated and weathered lines, dsl isnt not a realistic option. This
> (my opinion) only applies to the density of cities where there are
> lots of potential customers for the phone company to target. This
> is not true outside of cities throughout the midwest. Not with DSL.

90% must refer to population, not geography.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: resolv.conf questions

Tom H-4
In reply to this post by Colin Watson
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 5:21 PM Colin Watson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 09:01:22AM -0500, Wade Smart wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Statistically means numbers. Here they are: https://broadbandnow.com/DSL 90% coverage...
>>
>> Im calling bs on this coverage. DSL may be offered 'virtually
>> everywhere' but only in name. Between ill maintained lines,
>> outdated and weathered lines, dsl isnt not a realistic option.
>> This (my opinion) only applies to the density of cities where
>> there are lots of potential customers for the phone company to
>> target. This is not true outside of cities throughout the midwest.
>> Not with DSL.
>
> https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html
> says that 82.3% of the US population is "urban". I appreciate that
> that can have a variety of meanings, but is it not nevertheless
> true that most people in the US live in cities? I think the 90%
> there is meant to refer to population, not land area.

I looked up the US census definition of "urban" last year and it's
funky: cities with a population of 2,500 and above.

But I also found (during the above search) that the top 50 cities in
the US have more than 50% of the country's population.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: resolv.conf questions

Tom H-4
In reply to this post by Robert Heller
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 5:58 PM Robert Heller <[hidden email]> wrote:
> At Tue, 13 Aug 2019 09:01:22 -0500 <[hidden email]> wrote:


>>>> Statistically means numbers. Here they are:
>>>> https://broadbandnow.com/DSL 90% coverage...
>>
>> Im calling bs on this coverage. DSL may be offered 'virtually
>> everywhere' but only in name. Between ill maintained lines,
>> outdated and weathered lines, dsl isnt not a realistic option.
>> This (my opinion) only applies to the density of cities where
>> there are lots of potential customers for the phone company to
>> target. This is not true outside of cities throughout the midwest.
>> Not with DSL.
>
> DSL *maxes* at 3MB/Sec (this is the *technical* limitiation). DSL
> IS NOT "Broadband" (as defined by the FCC -- Broadband is 25Mbits
> or greater).

VDSL2 is an up-to-100 Mbit/s DSL (distance sensitive).


> It only works within 18,000 wire feet of the CO (assuming of course
> that the copper is any good). Probably all CO's are DSL capable at
> this time -- so what. This is meaningless for almost all *rural*
> areas, since most rural customers are more the 18,000 wire feet
> from the CO and are are served by "concentrators", most of which do
> not include DSLAMs (needed to support DSL). DSL is actually
> obsolete techology and DSL *equipment* is no longer made. Oh, and
> Verizon is phasing it out.
>
> The *private* sector will only implement true broadband in places
> with a dense enough population base (Comcast's rule-of-thumb is 15
> houses per mile, the other providers are probably similar). Oh, and
> then there will be a "monopoly", where the population is pretty
> much at the mercy of the provider. So even in the dense urban
> areas, what passes for Internet service is often "crap" (by world
> standards). The USA has been "falling behind" for decades and will
> likely continue to do so.
>
> For areas of lower density, you are "out of luck" -- the *only*
> option will be public funding, typically Municipally owned fiber
> optic networks. And that requires a willingness to raise taxes...
> But when the local population "bites the bullet" and votes to raise
> the money, they end up with better service than is available in the
> urban areas.

It's not an exclusively US problem. Rural areas in the EU have slower
internet access than urban areas too.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: resolv.conf questions

Eliza
In reply to this post by Wade Smart-2


on 2019/8/14 0:19, Wade Smart wrote:
> We are WAY WAY off topic here - and Im totally at fault too
> for replying.. we need a side list for this :D HAHA
>
> The whole private to public is a mess with internet and
> penetration

though off topic too, but what ISP would you suggest for CA area?

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
1234