71–80 of 151 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or just unbundle the local loop as we do in the UK
Already had that in the US until the Supreme Court decided we shouldn't have that in the Brand X case. It's very, very unlikely to come back.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"trying not to get squashed by the powers that be" is the future. Only going to get harder each year.
Which is why we should be scrambling to get it done now . Free and non-centrally-controllable access to connectivity is going to be a powerful aide in all the other battles. Priorities priorities priorities. Andre Staltz gives[1] an approximate deadline of 5-10 years, or we're doomed. [1] https://staltz.com/a-plan-to-rescue-the-web-from-the-interne...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"trying not to get squashed by the powers that be" is the future. Only going to get harder each year.
Which is why we should be scrambling to get it done now . Free and non-centrally-controllable access to connectivity is going to be a powerful aide in all the other battles. Priorities priorities priorities. Andre Staltz gives[1] an approximate deadline of 5-10 years, or we're doomed. [1] https://staltz.com/a-plan-to-rescue-the-web-from-the-interne...
We should be focusing on tech that makes aerospace less costly. The benefits will extend beyond a free & open network. There is good science and theory on ways to reduce costs in aerospace, it's an engineering/business problem at this point.
[1]https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/04/spacex-internet-satellites-e... [2]https://medium.com/iot-5g-extreme-ideas-lab/googles-balloon-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yes although can be harder to retrofit, e.g. i don't believe many of the US fiber architectures were built to be multi-tenant with (n) service providers behind 1 operator. especially because the duopoly's control most of them. enter the muni-fiber and similar projects...but built to a different commercial model...
For the urban, and dense suburban areas fiber is a great option and has much higher potential. But there will always be a large portion of the US that is not profitable to run fiber, and already has phone service. We already have multitenant access in the US for all phone service. Just extending the current regulation to cover DSL is all that is needed to allow for competition and improved internet speed. You can get…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to NRTC [1] fiber deployments to the premises cost approximately $800/deployment. Ignoring uptake, operational expenses etc that’s $13/mo per deployment to recover cost in 5 years. I have no idea what the average consumer pays their residential provider but I would estimate it’s over $100/mo on average. It seems like it would be fairly easy to get return in 5 years. These are numbers for fiber. [1] https://…
Less of that three digit cable bill goes to the company than you might expect. Content providers don't give it away for free. ESPN is notorious for eating a huge % of the bill.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For the urban, and dense suburban areas fiber is a great option and has much higher potential. But there will always be a large portion of the US that is not profitable to run fiber, and already has phone service. We already have multitenant access in the US for all phone service. Just extending the current regulation to cover DSL is all that is needed to allow for competition and improved internet speed. You can get…
In the less dense areas the most economical solution for great connectivity is definitely mesh networks. They are even being deployed in very rural areas at a very low cost! http://owni.fr/files/2011/09/Building_a_Rural_Wireless_Mesh_... Obviously there are better (commercial, prepackaged) mesh network solutions
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We already have this. It's called white space technology and has so far amounted to pretty much nothing. The technology is immature and expensive plus it provides very little bandwidth.
What segments of the spectrum allow this technology for public use? How do those compare to what ATT/VZN own?
'community-owned broadband networks provide consumers with significantly lower rates than their private-sector counterparts'
Having worked for a small gov't agency in NYC and personally witnessed all sorts of waste and incompetence, I'm a bit skeptical that this is at all possible. I don't think efficiency or cost-effectiveness is not something that comes to my mind when someone talks about gov't services.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Are community-run broadband providers cheaper because they are subsidized by taxes? No, they are cheaper because the local monopolists/duopolists can charge the customers through the nose, as they don't have any alternative. Any form of competition leads to a reduction in costs for the consumer. In addition, stuff like eight-digit compensations (Comcast: 37.5M $ for the CEO alone, https://www1.salary.com/Stephen-B-…
And let's not forget their grand incompetence as well. At&t and comcast spend huge amounts on wasted advertisement. I get ads for At&T all the time. I hate them so much, I repeat click on their ads just to waste more of their marketing dollars. Obliviously, they keep sending me the same ads.