 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Is this a real product? It reads like an April Fool's joke. They're
talking about giving you 1,000 mbit/sec access to the Internet. That's
10x faster than our LAN! That's crazy. Most people's Internet bandwidth
is more like 2mbit/sec, or maybe as much as 8mbit/sec. I thought it was
nuts when our house got upgraded to 80mbit/sec. But 1,000? That's insane!
On the other hand, does anybody remember back when email services would
offer you, like, 2MB of storage space? And then a "premium option" to
upgrade this to maybe 10MB or something? And then Google Mail came along
and said "Hey, here's 1GB of storage. For free." And suddenly everybody
else was like "WTF? They can DO that?? Holy cow, we're losing all our
customers!!!"
When Google first proposed it, it sounded insane. I can personally
remember micro-managing my inbox to delete old cruft to prevent it
filling up. Today, having "only" a piffling 2MB to play with is the
thing that sounds insane. Disk space costs, what, about £30 per
terabyte? So if each customer has 1GB, that's 3p per customer. That's
peanuts.
I still remember with some amusement Hotmail suddenly upping their
default mailbox size from 2MB to 250MB to 5GB. So, um, if you could do
that all along, why didn't you? Basically, it seems Google did something
revolutionary, and everybody else scrambled to catch up.
Internet access is different though. You can't just suddenly say "ah,
sod it, let's just increase the speed 500x". It requires completely
replacing the entire infrastructure of the Internet - a presumably
impossible task. So... is this really real?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 02/08/2012 12:23, Invisible a écrit :
> Internet access is different though. You can't just suddenly say "ah,
> sod it, let's just increase the speed 500x". It requires completely
> replacing the entire infrastructure of the Internet - a presumably
> impossible task. So... is this really real?
you only have to change the access part.
The Internet is already on fiber, excepted for the access part.
Here, we went from telephony-modem (9600, then 28.8k (last symmetric
one), then 56k), to ADSL, and ADSL2 and ADSL2+ (with re-adsl and other
tricks in the middle).
Yet, if you are 6km away from the telecom building, you get a low 2mb/s
(download, upload might be 512k to 1024kb/s). If really unlucky, you get
a 512#128kb/s line for a fortune per month.
If you are very lucky to be less than 100m from the building, you might
get 28#1mb/s.
(at 2 km, I get a 13#1 mb/s, not bad to see all your big picture in p.b.i)
And some happy few have already the fiber at home (with a fight for
standard: 2 telecom companies have chosen GPON, 1 has chosen P2P, a
fourth is ready for both, and a cable operator is trying to get a bit of
jackpot within its monopoly) (and its even more complex)
Proposal for fiber so far are about (for home user):
* 100#10 Mb/s
* 100#50 Mb/s
* 100#5 Mb/s (that's the cable one, notice the low upload)
Main issue: coverage is low. A study from March 2012 showed that only
10% of home were connectable today, with 80% of them by the cable
operator: i.e. only 2% of the normal country is reachable so far with a
real fiber.
A bit more about numbers: on GPON, the signal is shared (and encrypted)
on a single fiber between 64 ( or 128) end users, via a passive optic
splitting tree. Which means that all offers with 100 Mb/s download are
already fed by a faster fiber.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02/08/2012 02:49 PM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Le 02/08/2012 12:23, Invisible a écrit :
>
>> Internet access is different though. You can't just suddenly say "ah,
>> sod it, let's just increase the speed 500x". It requires completely
>> replacing the entire infrastructure of the Internet - a presumably
>> impossible task. So... is this really real?
>
> you only have to change the access part.
> The Internet is already on fiber, excepted for the access part.
Oh, well, sure. Apart from THE LARGEST AND MOST EXPENSIVE PART OF THE
NETWORK, it's already fiber. No problem. :-)
> Main issue: coverage is low. A study from March 2012 showed that only
> 10% of home were connectable today, with 80% of them by the cable
> operator: i.e. only 2% of the normal country is reachable so far with a
> real fiber.
The technology to access the Internet at gigabits per second already
exists. The problem is that it will cost a fortune to dig up the entire
country to lay hundreds of thousands of miles of fiber. Which is why
nobody is doing this. (Or at least, not very fast.)
This is what makes Google Fiber so surprising. They're not promising 3x
more speed. They aren't offering 5x more. It even 10x more like BT
Infinity just did to my house. (Did I mention my mother /works for/ BT?)
They're talking about 200x more speed. That's epic, right there.
It mirrors what happened with Gmail. Within weeks of Gmail going live,
suddenly every other provider massively increased the storage they were
offering. But that was because they had the capacity all along, they
were just trying to charge lots of money for it. Today, any webmail
service offering only 2MB of storage would be laughed out of the
building. Google actually forced an entire market to change. Over night.
Internet access is a little different. All Hotmail had to do was
/literally/ press a button and everybody got a 500x storage limit
increase. You can't do that with bandwidth.
Still, Google appears very, very confident indeed. From what I can tell,
they're only wiring on Kansas. (WTF? Why Kansas?!) And yet, they made
bold claims such as this:
"How long will the free package remain free?
The free package will remain free for 7 years. After that, it will be
charged at normal industry rates - which, if Google Fiber is successful,
will be $0."
This throws their ambition into sharp relief. They intend to build a
next-generation network today, and they expect it to force the rest of
the telecomms marked to react. They have set out to do nothing less than
transform the global ISP market.
Wow.
Um, good luck with that...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02/08/2012 11:23 AM, Invisible wrote:
> Is this a real product? It reads like an April Fool's joke. They're
> talking about giving you 1,000 mbit/sec access to the Internet. That's
> 10x faster than our LAN! That's crazy.
It appears to be real, however.
The prices look pretty insane though. They offer 3 products:
5mbit/sec FOR FREE.
1000mbit/sec for $70/month.
1000mbit/sec plus a TV package with a PVR with has an Andriod tablet
as the freaking REMOTE CONTROL for $120/month.
Now, at today's exchange rate, $70 is about £45 - vastly more expensive
than any ISP package I've ever seen advertised. (Anyone wanting £30 is
unlikely to have many takers. £15/month is more typical.)
Then again, exchange rates don't take into account earnings. So I don't
really know if $70 is a lot of money for a typical American (much less
one living in Kansas). Anybody here know?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 02/08/2012 16:24, Invisible a écrit :
> They intend to build a next-generation network today, and they expect it
> to force the rest of the telecomms marked to react. They have set out to
> do nothing less than transform the global ISP market.
Same here (France) with mobile phone. On January 2012, a new real
operator started to be available (still low coverage), it makes a big
reaction on the pricing of the 3 old historic operators.
Suddenly, price were cut...
Any historic operator has one main goal: get most of the money from
actual equipment.
And a secondary goal: track any new technology which might force to
evolve, should a concurrent used it; deploy with slowness (see main
goal) to advertise about high technology.
A fresh operator has one goal: get most of the money from newly bought
equipment. i.e. get new customers, keep them, expand as money and
customers allows.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 15:32:58 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> Now, at today's exchange rate, $70 is about £45 - vastly more expensive
> than any ISP package I've ever seen advertised. (Anyone wanting £30 is
> unlikely to have many takers. £15/month is more typical.)
Our 3 Mbps DSL is $49.95/month. In the US, ISP charges tend to be a bit
more expensive.
Then again, US cable TV through Comcast was costing us $120/month. How
much do you pay for your TV license+other TV services?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02/08/2012 05:17 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 15:32:58 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>
>> Now, at today's exchange rate, $70 is about £45 - vastly more expensive
>> than any ISP package I've ever seen advertised. (Anyone wanting £30 is
>> unlikely to have many takers. £15/month is more typical.)
>
> Our 3 Mbps DSL is $49.95/month. In the US, ISP charges tend to be a bit
> more expensive.
Interesting. I wonder if wages are comparably higher...
> Then again, US cable TV through Comcast was costing us $120/month. How
> much do you pay for your TV license+other TV services?
Just looked it up. £145/year for a TV license. (That's around
£12/month.) If you use Freeview, this is the only recurring cost.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 18:03:30 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 02/08/2012 05:17 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 15:32:58 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>
>>> Now, at today's exchange rate, $70 is about £45 - vastly more
>>> expensive than any ISP package I've ever seen advertised. (Anyone
>>> wanting £30 is unlikely to have many takers. £15/month is more
>>> typical.)
>>
>> Our 3 Mbps DSL is $49.95/month. In the US, ISP charges tend to be a
>> bit more expensive.
>
> Interesting. I wonder if wages are comparably higher...
I found this:
http://blog.thesalarycalculator.co.uk/paye/tax/comparison-of-uk-and-usa-
take-home/
>> Then again, US cable TV through Comcast was costing us $120/month. How
>> much do you pay for your TV license+other TV services?
>
> Just looked it up. £145/year for a TV license. (That's around
> £12/month.) If you use Freeview, this is the only recurring cost.
Yeah, I knew it was about £145 (£145.50 IIRC). But you don't get 600+
channels of garbage, either. ;)
But comparatively speaking, you get off pretty cheaply.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Interesting. I wonder if wages are comparably higher...
>
> I found this:
>
> http://blog.thesalarycalculator.co.uk/paye/tax/comparison-of-uk-and-usa-
> take-home/
I made this:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=average+income+Kansas
On current exchange rates, that looks like considerably more money than
I will ever earn.
>> Just looked it up. £145/year for a TV license. (That's around
>> £12/month.) If you use Freeview, this is the only recurring cost.
>
> Yeah, I knew it was about £145 (£145.50 IIRC). But you don't get 600+
> channels of garbage, either. ;)
>
> But comparatively speaking, you get off pretty cheaply.
Heh. I can still remember when I was a teenager people telling me that
"in America, you can buy a CD for just £5!" (That's 3x cheaper than the
UK.) I always wondered whether there was actually a shred of truth to
such an outlandish claim...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> The prices look pretty insane though.
what is really insane, and brace yourself:
with this kind of high-speed connection you'll have HD content on the fly.
Movies, TV or games, whenever you want from whatever device you want. Wanna
watch "Avatar" now? No prob, just click away and start watching. Wanna play
the latest nextgen HD game? No need to buy the latest and most expensive
console or GPU, or download any executable, just click away and start playing
right away on you inexpensive android device.
really, they are making even gaming a hispeed connection cloud service... search
OnLive or Gaikai...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> The prices look pretty insane though.
>
> what is really insane, and brace yourself:
>
> with this kind of high-speed connection you'll have HD content on the fly.
> Movies, TV or games, whenever you want from whatever device you want. Wanna
> watch "Avatar" now? No prob, just click away and start watching.
That's a nice /idea/... except that whoever is serving the content will
be charging you very large fees for this service.
> Wanna play
> the latest nextgen HD game? No need to buy the latest and most expensive
> console or GPU, or download any executable, just click away and start playing
> right away on you inexpensive android device.
How the heck would that work?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Our 3 Mbps DSL is $49.95/month. In the US, ISP charges tend to be a bit
> more expensive.
I wonder why. Here in Finland internet connections tend to be laughably
cheap. For example I have a 10/2 Mbps connection that costs me 5 euros
per month.
(Ok, it's a bit more complicated than that, but it's still laughably cheap.
You see, there's an internet connection by default in all the flats of this
housing cooperative, which is part of the rent(*), and by default 1/1 Mbps, as
part of a deal with the ISP. Increasing it to 10/2 Mbps costs just 5 euros
per month more.)
(*) Well not "rent" per se. I think the closest term I can find with google
is "condominium payment" or "condo fee". But this same housing cooperative
has rental housing with the same deal.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> The prices look pretty insane though.
> >
> > what is really insane, and brace yourself:
> >
> > with this kind of high-speed connection you'll have HD content on the fly.
> > Movies, TV or games, whenever you want from whatever device you want. Wanna
> > watch "Avatar" now? No prob, just click away and start watching.
>
> That's a nice /idea/... except that whoever is serving the content will
> be charging you very large fees for this service.
netflix is just an inexpensive R$ 14 here in Brazil. Now the fast connection is
up to you, but it's not that hard. I confortably watch SD netflix with nothing
but a 3G cellphone connection! o_0
> > Wanna play
> > the latest nextgen HD game? No need to buy the latest and most expensive
> > console or GPU, or download any executable, just click away and start playing
> > right away on you inexpensive android device.
>
> How the heck would that work?
they send you video frames and you send them command inputs. Continuously.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 02.08.2012 21:39, schrieb Warp:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Our 3 Mbps DSL is $49.95/month. In the US, ISP charges tend to be a bit
>> more expensive.
>
> I wonder why. Here in Finland internet connections tend to be laughably
> cheap. For example I have a 10/2 Mbps connection that costs me 5 euros
> per month.
Maybe in Finland the "Damned Last Mile" is typically shorter than in the
USA.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> That's a nice /idea/... except that whoever is serving the content will
>> be charging you very large fees for this service.
>
> netflix is just an inexpensive R$ 14 here in Brazil. Now the fast connection is
> up to you, but it's not that hard. I confortably watch SD netflix with nothing
> but a 3G cellphone connection! o_0
Presumably Netflix is only possible due to absurd levels of image
compression though. Higher bandwidth lets you send pictures with less
compression, but then you're putting more load on the server streaming
the data. That isn't going to be cheap.
>>> Wanna play
>>> the latest nextgen HD game? No need to buy the latest and most expensive
>>> console or GPU, or download any executable, just click away and start playing
>>> right away on you inexpensive android device.
>>
>> How the heck would that work?
>
> they send you video frames and you send them command inputs. Continuously.
I severely doubt that even a gigabit link would have sufficiently low
latency for this to be feasible.
(Hell, I have a 100 mbit *LAN* and VNC is still laggy as hell...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 02.08.2012 21:59, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
>>>> Wanna play
>>>> the latest nextgen HD game? No need to buy the latest and most
>>>> expensive
>>>> console or GPU, or download any executable, just click away and
>>>> start playing
>>>> right away on you inexpensive android device.
>>>
>>> How the heck would that work?
>>
>> they send you video frames and you send them command inputs.
>> Continuously.
>
> I severely doubt that even a gigabit link would have sufficiently low
> latency for this to be feasible.
>
> (Hell, I have a 100 mbit *LAN* and VNC is still laggy as hell...)
On a typical point-to-point link between a gamer's computer and the
internet provider, the data transfer rate has absolutely, positively
/nothing/ to do with latency. (Typical LANs with plenty of nodes are a
totally different story due to packet collisions.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 02/08/2012 21:59, Orchid Win7 v1 nous fit lire :
> (Hell, I have a 100 mbit *LAN* and VNC is still laggy as hell...)
VNC is an insult to any network. X11 had some clue, but VNC really lost
everything. Worst than VNC, I guess, would be running VM via VNC...
Also, default client for VNC do not have compression (tsclient nor
vinagre).
First speedup: on remote, change background for a plain colour (no fancy
pictures). Next reduce to 256 colours on the client. Or Thousands.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 19:34:59 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> Interesting. I wonder if wages are comparably higher...
>>
>> I found this:
>>
>> http://blog.thesalarycalculator.co.uk/paye/tax/comparison-of-uk-and-
usa-
>> take-home/
>
> I made this:
>
> http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=average+income+Kansas
>
> On current exchange rates, that looks like considerably more money than
> I will ever earn.
Well, you keep self-selecting out of positions that might get you a
decent salary by not applying for them. We've had that discussion before.
>>> Just looked it up. £145/year for a TV license. (That's around
>>> £12/month.) If you use Freeview, this is the only recurring cost.
>>
>> Yeah, I knew it was about £145 (£145.50 IIRC). But you don't get 600+
>> channels of garbage, either. ;)
>>
>> But comparatively speaking, you get off pretty cheaply.
>
> Heh. I can still remember when I was a teenager people telling me that
> "in America, you can buy a CD for just £5!" (That's 3x cheaper than the
> UK.) I always wondered whether there was actually a shred of truth to
> such an outlandish claim...
You *could* look at amazon.com and see that it is in fact true. In fact,
some are even cheaper than that. Then you wouldn't have to wonder if it
was true. You'd know.
Of course at that price, you're generally not talking about the
soundtrack to a recently-released film.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 15:39:42 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Our 3 Mbps DSL is $49.95/month. In the US, ISP charges tend to be a
>> bit more expensive.
>
> I wonder why. Here in Finland internet connections tend to be laughably
> cheap. For example I have a 10/2 Mbps connection that costs me 5 euros
> per month.
Haven't you heard? The free market solves all problems. Competition
drives prices down, and deregulation is key to the success of the free
market.
At least, that's the mantra here. And since we're in the United States
of America, it *must* be true, because we're the GREATEST NATION IN THE
UNIVERSE!!!@!@!@@!@!@!@
We have better healthcare, better 'net connectivity, better teeth, and
better food, and our students are #1 in the world at everything. USA!
USA! USA! USA!
Just ask anyone who lives here.
(sorry if my sarcasm wasn't coming through ;) I get tired of hearing
"we're #1" when we're NOT - but the constant declarations of our
superiority in everything mean that we don't actually take the time to
improve things like infrastructure, health care, etc.)
> (Ok, it's a bit more complicated than that, but it's still laughably
> cheap. You see, there's an internet connection by default in all the
> flats of this housing cooperative, which is part of the rent(*), and by
> default 1/1 Mbps, as part of a deal with the ISP. Increasing it to 10/2
> Mbps costs just 5 euros per month more.)
>
>
> (*) Well not "rent" per se. I think the closest term I can find with
> google is "condominium payment" or "condo fee". But this same housing
> cooperative has rental housing with the same deal.
It'd be what is referred to here as an 'association fee' (as in a
homeowner's association).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2012-08-02 10:24, Invisible a écrit :
> On 02/08/2012 02:49 PM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>> Le 02/08/2012 12:23, Invisible a écrit :
>>
>>> Internet access is different though. You can't just suddenly say "ah,
>>> sod it, let's just increase the speed 500x". It requires completely
>>> replacing the entire infrastructure of the Internet - a presumably
>>> impossible task. So... is this really real?
>>
>> you only have to change the access part.
>> The Internet is already on fiber, excepted for the access part.
>
> Oh, well, sure. Apart from THE LARGEST AND MOST EXPENSIVE PART OF THE
> NETWORK, it's already fiber. No problem. :-)
>
>> Main issue: coverage is low. A study from March 2012 showed that only
>> 10% of home were connectable today, with 80% of them by the cable
>> operator: i.e. only 2% of the normal country is reachable so far with a
>> real fiber.
>
> The technology to access the Internet at gigabits per second already
> exists. The problem is that it will cost a fortune to dig up the entire
> country to lay hundreds of thousands of miles of fiber. Which is why
> nobody is doing this. (Or at least, not very fast.)
Nobody except everyone. There were guys from the telephone company in
my backyard a few weeks ago installing fibre optic cables on the
telephost posts. The tv cable has been fibre optics from the get go,
when the neighborhood was built 6 years ago.
A few yearsa go, the carriers only installe dit when some cities would
require "fibre to the home" for any new development, but now customers
are asking for it, so they have no choice, or irsk losing those
customers to the competition.
>
> This is what makes Google Fiber so surprising. They're not promising 3x
> more speed. They aren't offering 5x more. It even 10x more like BT
> Infinity just did to my house. (Did I mention my mother /works for/ BT?)
> They're talking about 200x more speed. That's epic, right there.
>
Yeah, moving from cat 3 copper wies to fibre optics will do that!
> It mirrors what happened with Gmail. Within weeks of Gmail going live,
> suddenly every other provider massively increased the storage they were
> offering. But that was because they had the capacity all along, they
> were just trying to charge lots of money for it. Today, any webmail
> service offering only 2MB of storage would be laughed out of the
> building. Google actually forced an entire market to change. Over night.
>
> Internet access is a little different. All Hotmail had to do was
> /literally/ press a button and everybody got a 500x storage limit
> increase. You can't do that with bandwidth.
>
Sure they can. They've been offering HDTV signals over wire for the
past 5 years, this means the infrastructure is there to support that
bandwith.
The same thing happened 20 years ago when cable providers decided to
become internet providers since they already had enough bandwidth to
send 60 to 80 tv channels to every home... using one for data signals
was not a problem at all.
This forced the phone companies to massively upgrade their networks to
support faster and faster aDSL services.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2012-08-02 14:34, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
>
> Heh. I can still remember when I was a teenager people telling me that
> "in America, you can buy a CD for just £5!" (That's 3x cheaper than the
> UK.) I always wondered whether there was actually a shred of truth to
> such an outlandish claim...
In the bargain bin next to the cashier, yeah. CDs are usually around
15$ USD.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> > (*) Well not "rent" per se. I think the closest term I can find with
> > google is "condominium payment" or "condo fee". But this same housing
> > cooperative has rental housing with the same deal.
> It'd be what is referred to here as an 'association fee' (as in a
> homeowner's association).
I don't rent this apartment, but neither am I a homehowner per se (iow.
I don't *own* this apartment either). It's a form in-between those two.
The montly fee is cheaper than rent for a typical apartment of the same
size in the same area, and I have more rights to the apartment than I would
if it was a rental (eg. I could make modifications and renovations that
would not be allowed in a rented apartment), but it's not ownership per se.
I'm not sure what the English term for this is.
(If I actually owned this apartment, but had to share the building's common
services with all the other tenants, and thus pay a fee for the maintenance,
I think the term is "condominium". This is almost like that, except that
I don't really fully own the apartment. However, it's not the same as rental
either.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 17:32:22 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> > (*) Well not "rent" per se. I think the closest term I can find with
>> > google is "condominium payment" or "condo fee". But this same housing
>> > cooperative has rental housing with the same deal.
>
>> It'd be what is referred to here as an 'association fee' (as in a
>> homeowner's association).
>
> I don't rent this apartment, but neither am I a homehowner per se (iow.
> I don't *own* this apartment either). It's a form in-between those two.
> The montly fee is cheaper than rent for a typical apartment of the same
> size in the same area, and I have more rights to the apartment than I
> would if it was a rental (eg. I could make modifications and renovations
> that would not be allowed in a rented apartment), but it's not ownership
> per se.
>
> I'm not sure what the English term for this is.
OIC, I'm not sure either. Could you basically walk away from it if you
wanted to?
> (If I actually owned this apartment, but had to share the building's
> common services with all the other tenants, and thus pay a fee for the
> maintenance,
> I think the term is "condominium". This is almost like that, except that
> I don't really fully own the apartment. However, it's not the same as
> rental either.)
A condominium is a type of dwelling, not a use arrangement. Condos tend
to have the "association fees" I mentioned before to cover things like
care for common areas on the property and whatnot, but the condo itself
has a separate payment made either to a landlord (as a rental) or a
mortgage company (as a purchase).
What's the word in Finnish that describes it?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2012-08-02 17:32, Warp a écrit :
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>> (*) Well not "rent" per se. I think the closest term I can find with
>>> google is "condominium payment" or "condo fee". But this same housing
>>> cooperative has rental housing with the same deal.
>
>> It'd be what is referred to here as an 'association fee' (as in a
>> homeowner's association).
>
> I don't rent this apartment, but neither am I a homehowner per se (iow.
> I don't *own* this apartment either). It's a form in-between those two.
> The montly fee is cheaper than rent for a typical apartment of the same
> size in the same area, and I have more rights to the apartment than I would
> if it was a rental (eg. I could make modifications and renovations that
> would not be allowed in a rented apartment), but it's not ownership per se.
>
> I'm not sure what the English term for this is.
>
In my area, they call it a co-op.
> (If I actually owned this apartment, but had to share the building's common
> services with all the other tenants, and thus pay a fee for the maintenance,
> I think the term is "condominium". This is almost like that, except that
> I don't really fully own the apartment. However, it's not the same as rental
> either.)
>
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 20:58:06 -0400, Francois Labreque wrote:
> In my area, they call it a co-op.
Ah, that's probably the right term for it. :)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> The technology to access the Internet at gigabits per second already
>> exists. The problem is that it will cost a fortune to dig up the entire
>> country to lay hundreds of thousands of miles of fiber. Which is why
>> nobody is doing this. (Or at least, not very fast.)
>
> Nobody except everyone. There were guys from the telephone company in my
> backyard a few weeks ago installing fibre optic cables on the telephost
> posts. The tv cable has been fibre optics from the get go, when the
> neighborhood was built 6 years ago.
Like I said, "not very fast".
> A few yearsa go, the carriers only installe dit when some cities would
> require "fibre to the home" for any new development, but now customers
> are asking for it, so they have no choice, or irsk losing those
> customers to the competition.
Maybe in your country. Over here, most people don't even realise that
it's /possible/ to have fiber to your house. (Or that this would be
beneficial somehow.) Like I said, BT is currently heavily pushing it's
"Infinity" product, which is basically fiber to the kerb, giving a 10x
speed boost. Not 200x, just 10x. And it's not cheap. And it's not
available in 80% of the country. And it won't be available for years...
>> They're talking about 200x more speed. That's epic, right there.
>
> Yeah, moving from cat 3 copper wies to fibre optics will do that!
Well, you say that... My employer has a dedicated fiber connection, and
it has a maximum speed of 10 mbit/sec. (We actually pay for 5mbit/sec.
Costs about £30,000/year, IIRC. Then again, that's because we get
business-grade reliability guarantees...)
>> Internet access is a little different. All Hotmail had to do was
>> /literally/ press a button and everybody got a 500x storage limit
>> increase. You can't do that with bandwidth.
>
> Sure they can. They've been offering HDTV signals over wire for the past
> 5 years, this means the infrastructure is there to support that bandwith.
I don't know about you, but we receive out HDTV signals over the
airwaves, not over copper.
> The same thing happened 20 years ago when cable providers decided to
> become internet providers since they already had enough bandwidth to
> send 60 to 80 tv channels to every home... using one for data signals
> was not a problem at all.
>
> This forced the phone companies to massively upgrade their networks to
> support faster and faster aDSL services.
I don't even know what "cable" is.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02/08/2012 10:14 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
> Le 2012-08-02 14:34, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
>>
>> Heh. I can still remember when I was a teenager people telling me that
>> "in America, you can buy a CD for just £5!" (That's 3x cheaper than the
>> UK.) I always wondered whether there was actually a shred of truth to
>> such an outlandish claim...
>
> In the bargain bin next to the cashier, yeah. CDs are usually around 15$
> USD.
Yeah, that's pretty much what I thought.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> On current exchange rates, that looks like considerably more money than
>> I will ever earn.
>
> Well, you keep self-selecting out of positions that might get you a
> decent salary by not applying for them. We've had that discussion before.
Not any more. [More on this later...]
>> Heh. I can still remember when I was a teenager people telling me that
>> "in America, you can buy a CD for just £5!" (That's 3x cheaper than the
>> UK.) I always wondered whether there was actually a shred of truth to
>> such an outlandish claim...
>
> You *could* look at amazon.com and see that it is in fact true. In fact,
> some are even cheaper than that. Then you wouldn't have to wonder if it
> was true. You'd know.
>
> Of course at that price, you're generally not talking about the
> soundtrack to a recently-released film.
Well, today you can buy CDs in the UK for less than £10 - IF you buy
them online.
That still doesn't tell me whether it was possible to buy CDs 3x cheaper
in the US highstreets when I heard this claim 10 years ago. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> (Hell, I have a 100 mbit *LAN* and VNC is still laggy as hell...)
>
> VNC is an insult to any network. X11 had some clue, but VNC really lost
> everything. Worst than VNC, I guess, would be running VM via VNC...
Funny. Everybody tells me that X11 has a really horrid wire protocol...
> Also, default client for VNC do not have compression (tsclient nor
> vinagre).
Actually I'm using TightVNC, which is supposedly one of the best.
> First speedup: on remote, change background for a plain colour (no fancy
> pictures). Next reduce to 256 colours on the client. Or Thousands.
Why bother? The client has an option to not send the wallpaper. (Not
that any of these machines /have/ one in the first place...) It also
seems to turn off effects like the colour gradients on window titlebars.
And yet, it's still laggy as hell, and sometimes parts of the display
intermittently fail to update unless you manually "refresh".
I hate to say it, but RDP seems to be more reliable. Although no less
laggy...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> OIC, I'm not sure either. Could you basically walk away from it if you
> wanted to?
Yes. With a term of notice of one month.
It's a mode of ownership where you kind of "half-buy" the apartment. This
means you pay something like 15% (IIRC) of its full price, and when you
move out, you get that money back (inflation-adjusted).
It's different from a rental in that with a rental you don't pay anything
but the rent, and you have less rights to the apartment.
> A condominium is a type of dwelling, not a use arrangement. Condos tend
> to have the "association fees" I mentioned before to cover things like
> care for common areas on the property and whatnot, but the condo itself
> has a separate payment made either to a landlord (as a rental) or a
> mortgage company (as a purchase).
> What's the word in Finnish that describes it?
I think the Finnish term that most accurately corresponds to this is
"asunto-osake", which literally means "apartment share" (as in a stock
market share). I think that you literally buy a share (in the exact same
way as you would buy shares of any compnay) and you own the apartment as
property. The apartment is usually located in a building and you have to
pay a (relatively small) monthly fee for the maintenance (which would be
exactly a "condo fee", AFAIK).
This form of living is a bit like that, except you don't actually own the
apartment as property, although you have much more rights to it than with
a rented apartment.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Francois Labreque <fla### [at] videotronca> wrote:
> In my area, they call it a co-op.
Reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_cooperative#Finland I think
it's not exactly the same thing.
The form described there ("asunto-osake") is basically that you buy a
market share of the housing company, and you basically own the apartment.
There's little difference from owning an actual house (except that you
have to pay condo fees, etc).
That's very common here, but it's not the form of living that I'm talking
about. I do not actually own any shares. This is kind of half-way between
owning and renting.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 09:13:12 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>> On current exchange rates, that looks like considerably more money
>>> than I will ever earn.
>>
>> Well, you keep self-selecting out of positions that might get you a
>> decent salary by not applying for them. We've had that discussion
>> before.
>
> Not any more. [More on this later...]
I saw. Sounds like a pretty weird way of shutting a business down.
>>> Heh. I can still remember when I was a teenager people telling me that
>>> "in America, you can buy a CD for just £5!" (That's 3x cheaper than
>>> the UK.) I always wondered whether there was actually a shred of truth
>>> to such an outlandish claim...
>>
>> You *could* look at amazon.com and see that it is in fact true. In
>> fact, some are even cheaper than that. Then you wouldn't have to
>> wonder if it was true. You'd know.
>>
>> Of course at that price, you're generally not talking about the
>> soundtrack to a recently-released film.
>
> Well, today you can buy CDs in the UK for less than £10 - IF you buy
> them online.
>
> That still doesn't tell me whether it was possible to buy CDs 3x cheaper
> in the US highstreets when I heard this claim 10 years ago. ;-)
It was. I did.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 08:31:47 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> OIC, I'm not sure either. Could you basically walk away from it if you
>> wanted to?
>
> Yes. With a term of notice of one month.
>
> It's a mode of ownership where you kind of "half-buy" the apartment.
> This means you pay something like 15% (IIRC) of its full price, and when
> you move out, you get that money back (inflation-adjusted).
>
> It's different from a rental in that with a rental you don't pay
> anything but the rent, and you have less rights to the apartment.
That's really interesting. I've never heard of anything like that here
in the US (not that that means it doesn't exist over here).
>> What's the word in Finnish that describes it?
>
> I think the Finnish term that most accurately corresponds to this is
> "asunto-osake", which literally means "apartment share" (as in a stock
> market share). I think that you literally buy a share (in the exact same
> way as you would buy shares of any compnay) and you own the apartment as
> property. The apartment is usually located in a building and you have to
> pay a (relatively small) monthly fee for the maintenance (which would be
> exactly a "condo fee", AFAIK).
>
> This form of living is a bit like that, except you don't actually own
> the apartment as property, although you have much more rights to it than
> with a rented apartment.
It sounds very similar to a co-op, but with a different financial
arrangement between the owner and the residents. There's a word on the
tip of my brain that I think describes it, but I can't quite get it off
the tip of my brain....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/2/2012 7:24, Invisible wrote:
> Oh, well, sure. Apart from THE LARGEST AND MOST EXPENSIVE PART OF THE
> NETWORK, it's already fiber. No problem. :-)
You do it a little at a time. One county or neighborhood at a time.
Go watch the (short) videos at fiber.google.com.
> The technology to access the Internet at gigabits per second already exists.
> The problem is that it will cost a fortune to dig up the entire country to
> lay hundreds of thousands of miles of fiber. Which is why nobody is doing
> this. (Or at least, not very fast.)
Not really. The fiber is already going to the head of the neighborhood, just
like water or electricity. You just run the cables thru the existing pipes
(or, in the case of KC, on the existing poles) that everything else goes
through. Getting the permissions to do that is the difficult and expensive
part, not the actual doing it.
> Still, Google appears very, very confident indeed. From what I can tell,
> they're only wiring on Kansas. (WTF? Why Kansas?!)
Because Kansas City promised not to be a dick about permits. When other
cities see it's actually possible, they too won't be dicks about permits.
> Um, good luck with that...
Cool thing is, it's quite likely to work, just like gmail did. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
"Don't panic. There's beans and filters
in the cabinet."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/2/2012 14:14, Francois Labreque wrote:
> In the bargain bin next to the cashier, yeah. CDs are usually around 15$ USD.
It varies greatly, but $10-$15 for a recent release of a pretty popular CD
isn't unusual. Then again, how that will hold up as more and more people go
entirely downloaded music is another question.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
"Don't panic. There's beans and filters
in the cabinet."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/2/2012 12:39, Warp wrote:
> (*) Well not "rent" per se. I think the closest term I can find with google
> is "condominium payment" or "condo fee". But this same housing cooperative
> has rental housing with the same deal.
FWIW, the word "condo fee" means the money you pay to the condo association
to maintain the part of the condo you don't own (e.g., the swimming pool,
the sidewalk, repaint the stairwells, etc.)
Home Owner Association fee is the same thing for separate houses.
The home owner association is a non-profit group made entirely of home
owners. Similarly for condos. It's there to take care of such shared property.
Rent for a condo (in the USA at least) usually includes the cost of the
condo fee.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
"Don't panic. There's beans and filters
in the cabinet."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/2/2012 14:39, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I'm not sure what the English term for this is.
>
> OIC, I'm not sure either. Could you basically walk away from it if you
> wanted to?
Seconded. That sounds odd. An unusual form of ownership.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
"Don't panic. There's beans and filters
in the cabinet."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/3/2012 5:31, Warp wrote:
> I think the Finnish term that most accurately corresponds to this is
> "asunto-osake", which literally means "apartment share" (as in a stock
> market share). I think that you literally buy a share (in the exact same
> way as you would buy shares of any compnay) and you own the apartment as
> property. The apartment is usually located in a building and you have to
> pay a (relatively small) monthly fee for the maintenance (which would be
> exactly a "condo fee", AFAIK).
Kewl. So some organization or company owns the entire building, and you own
part of that organization, which gives you certain rights in the building. A
neat system. I think I've heard of that in the USA, but it's far from common.
> This form of living is a bit like that, except you don't actually own the
> apartment as property, although you have much more rights to it than with
> a rented apartment.
There's something in the USA called a "time-share", where you own 1/52'nd of
one apartment, and you get to use it during that week, with the intent that
you use it for vacations. Another odd thing I don't think I've seen outside
of north america.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
"Don't panic. There's beans and filters
in the cabinet."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/2/2012 13:12, clipka wrote:
> On a typical point-to-point link between a gamer's computer and the internet
> provider, the data transfer rate has absolutely, positively /nothing/ to do
> with latency.
This isn't true. The higher the throughput, the faster the end of the packet
arrives after the beginning has been sent.
Send a 1K packet 100 miles over a 300-baud modem. Now send a 1K packet 100
miles over a gigabit fiber. Which gets there first if you start them at the
same time?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
"Don't panic. There's beans and filters
in the cabinet."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/3/2012 1:17, Invisible wrote:
>>> (Hell, I have a 100 mbit *LAN* and VNC is still laggy as hell...)
>>
>> VNC is an insult to any network. X11 had some clue, but VNC really lost
>> everything. Worst than VNC, I guess, would be running VM via VNC...
>
> Funny. Everybody tells me that X11 has a really horrid wire protocol...
Compared to everything except VNC, it does.
>> Also, default client for VNC do not have compression (tsclient nor
>> vinagre).
>
> Actually I'm using TightVNC, which is supposedly one of the best.
The best VNC. That's not saying much.
> I hate to say it, but RDP seems to be more reliable. Although no less laggy...
RDP using Microsoft's client is by far the best remote experience I've had.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
"Don't panic. There's beans and filters
in the cabinet."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 03/08/2012 19:21, Darren New nous fit lire :
> On 8/2/2012 13:12, clipka wrote:
>> On a typical point-to-point link between a gamer's computer and the
>> internet
>> provider, the data transfer rate has absolutely, positively /nothing/
>> to do
>> with latency.
>
> This isn't true. The higher the throughput, the faster the end of the
> packet arrives after the beginning has been sent.
>
> Send a 1K packet 100 miles over a 300-baud modem. Now send a 1K packet
> 100 miles over a gigabit fiber. Which gets there first if you start them
> at the same time?
>
A case does not make a general truth.
Please considere the bandwidth of a 747 filled with dual layer DVD-R (or
now blu-ray).
It will blast even your fiber, on raw value of provided bandwidth.
Yet, the plane won't leave before it get full... may take a few hours of
latency to cover the 100 miles (most on ground).
Bandwidth and latency are not always connected. In fact, for a real
situation, a satellite link (dedicated, you have $$$) is really a big
bandwidth, yet the latency is uncompressible, and worse than a fiber to
make a 100 miles trip.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> On 8/3/2012 5:31, Warp wrote:
> > I think the Finnish term that most accurately corresponds to this is
> > "asunto-osake", which literally means "apartment share" (as in a stock
> > market share). I think that you literally buy a share (in the exact same
> > way as you would buy shares of any compnay) and you own the apartment as
> > property. The apartment is usually located in a building and you have to
> > pay a (relatively small) monthly fee for the maintenance (which would be
> > exactly a "condo fee", AFAIK).
> Kewl. So some organization or company owns the entire building, and you own
> part of that organization, which gives you certain rights in the building. A
> neat system. I think I've heard of that in the USA, but it's far from common.
I think that "housing cooperative" is the most accurate term for that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_cooperative
However, the "in-between" form of my apartment might be unique to Finland
(or very few countries).
Basically it's: "Pay 15% (or such) of the apartment's full price, and you
can live there cheaper than the rent of the same apartment would be, plus
you get more rights to the apartment than with a rented apartment (eg. you
can perform modifications and renovations to a much larger extent, and it's
a bit more difficult for the building's owner to kick you out, for insance)."
The upside of this is also that you can move out at any moment (with a
month's notice) and you get that 15% you paid back (inflation-adjusted).
However, you don't actually *own* the apartment. You can't eg. sell it to
someone else, and there are limits to what you can do to it.
> There's something in the USA called a "time-share", where you own 1/52'nd of
> one apartment, and you get to use it during that week, with the intent that
> you use it for vacations. Another odd thing I don't think I've seen outside
> of north america.
There are time-share schemes like that in Finland, especially for luxury
vacation cottages near to skiing centers and such (which would otherwise
be *way* too expensive for the average person to buy).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/08/2012 9:09 AM, Invisible wrote:
>
> Maybe in your country. Over here, most people don't even realise that
> it's /possible/ to have fiber to your house. (Or that this would be
> beneficial somehow.)
Balderdash!
It is not the century of the Fruit bat any more.
Don't believe him folk. :-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/08/2012 6:47 PM, Warp wrote:
> However, the "in-between" form of my apartment might be unique to Finland
> (or very few countries).
>
> Basically it's: "Pay 15% (or such) of the apartment's full price, and you
> can live there cheaper than the rent of the same apartment would be, plus
> you get more rights to the apartment than with a rented apartment (eg. you
> can perform modifications and renovations to a much larger extent, and it's
> a bit more difficult for the building's owner to kick you out, for insance)."
It sounds similar to some of our Housing association schemes in the UK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_association
Co-op is reserved for:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Co-operative_Group
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Um, good luck with that...
>
> Cool thing is, it's quite likely to work, just like gmail did. :-)
Well, I hope you're right and everything, but I'm not feeling too
optimistic at this moment. Google clearly is, though. Saying that in 7
years' time the rates for 10mbit/sec "will be $0"? That's fighting talk
where I'm from. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/3/2012 10:30, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Bandwidth and latency are not always connected. In fact, for a real
> situation, a satellite link (dedicated, you have $$$) is really a big
> bandwidth, yet the latency is uncompressible, and worse than a fiber to
> make a 100 miles trip.
That doesn't mean they have nothing to do with each other. Bandwidth over
the same connection and route affects the latency. They're not independent
variables. They're not linearly related, either.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
"Don't panic. There's beans and filters
in the cabinet."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/08/2012 06:30 PM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Please considere the bandwidth of a 747 filled with dual layer DVD-R (or
> now blu-ray).
> It will blast even your fiber, on raw value of provided bandwidth.
> Yet, the plane won't leave before it get full... may take a few hours of
> latency to cover the 100 miles (most on ground).
In general, if anything, latency seems to /increase/ with bandwidth,
unfortunately...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 03/08/2012 6:47 PM, Warp wrote:
> > However, the "in-between" form of my apartment might be unique to Finland
> > (or very few countries).
> >
> > Basically it's: "Pay 15% (or such) of the apartment's full price, and you
> > can live there cheaper than the rent of the same apartment would be, plus
> > you get more rights to the apartment than with a rented apartment (eg. you
> > can perform modifications and renovations to a much larger extent, and it's
> > a bit more difficult for the building's owner to kick you out, for insance)."
> It sounds similar to some of our Housing association schemes in the UK.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_association
> Co-op is reserved for:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Co-operative_Group
The Finnish websites that have information about this kind of housing
and which have translations to English seem to use the term
"right-of-occupancy housing". Making a google search with this only
gives Finnish websites, so either they are using an unconventional
term, or the housing mode itself is quite unconventional and unique
to Finland (and possibly Sweden)...
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 10:18:33 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> There's something in the USA called a "time-share", where you own
> 1/52'nd of one apartment, and you get to use it during that week, with
> the intent that you use it for vacations. Another odd thing I don't
> think I've seen outside of north america.
*That's* what I was trying to think of. It does sound strikingly similar
in concept, except that the occupants live there full time.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/08/2012 7:18 PM, Warp wrote:
> Making a google search with this only
> gives Finnish websites,
That is true.
> so either they are using an unconventional
> term, or the housing mode itself is quite unconventional and unique
> to Finland (and possibly Sweden)...
It is certainly not common in Britain. Having said that it sounds like a
good idea. More power to your elbow!
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
