resolv.conf questions

[Tom H]

On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 5:58 PM Robert Heller <heller at deepsoft.com> wrote:
> At Tue, 13 Aug 2019 09:01:22 -0500 <ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com> 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 outdated and weathered lines, dsl isnt not a realistic option.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.