Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AT&T Pretends It, Too, Will Build A 1 Gigabit Network

techdirt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 149 posts

Re: AT&T Pretends It, Too, Will Build A 1 Gigabit Network

#51

Post by vidarh »

kalleboo wrote: post #22
CaptainZapp wrote: post #14

This reminds me a bit of the situation we had in Zurich. The (city owned) electric utility had a few hundred million reserves and decided to invest it into a fiber network. Actually - since the utility was owned by the city - the decision was based on a popular referendum, which sailed through. Needless to say that the established telcos and cable providers fought tooth and nail to kill the referendum. The interestin…

> The network is managed, and I think wisely so, in a way that EWZ grants equal access to private ISPs which then compete for customers. They don't act as an ISP. This is the model I see as ideal and it always baffles me why it's so rarely mentioned as an option. Make the fiber network a public grid like roads, water, sewer, power. Then sell access to private companies to deal with the connectivity, services (TV/VoIP…

Fibre in the UK is rolled out by two providers: Virgin, which owns "all" of the cable network in the UK (there are one or two tiny little pockets left, I believe, but no other country wide providers), and BT OpenReach which is in a similar position: They're a subsidiary of the ex-monopolist that is required to offer access to anyone that wants to, and with caps on what they can charge. Currently they're mainly deploying fibre to the cabinet.

But the thing is, as much as I'm absolutely for a similar model to this, the technology is not mature enough that we know how to make it work best. BT OpenReach is struggling to provide the same speeds as Virgin. They claim to be able to offer up to 100Mbps, or 150Mbps in some regions, but my provider which packages BT OpenReach fibre access does not advertise more than 80Mbps and often advises to expect less (I was told to expect no more than 66Mbps based on distance from the cabinet because despite BT OpenReach's claims, they very rarely manage to meet it. Meanwhile Virgin reportedly have no problems reaching 100Mbps.

Without competition, there'd be little incentive for BT OpenReach to try to resolve the issues limiting their bandwidth. As it is, it matters so much that they keep misleadingly claiming they can deliver more (and many ISPs echo their claims).

I'd argue that while it is important to have a "baseline" provider that is required to offer 100% equal access, it is still important to provide wider access. There's really little reason not to require that every time a cable duct is put down to the local cabinet, that extra strands of fibre are laid down, for example, so other operators can rent dark fibre and install their own equipment. Or that cabinets be made big enough to accommodate some extra equipment for a small number of additional providers (and put similar access requirements on these providers, given that space in the cabinets will still be at a premium).

Today in the UK, other providers can put equipment in BT's exchanges, but apart from the densest city cores there's no practical way for them to provide connections to the end-user premises other than for Virgin (which is only in that situation because they merged UK's last two large cable providers who each had spent many years gobbling up smaller operators, often at bargain prices as competition got fierce, and had already written off most of the cost of building out the physical infrastructure).

It isn't necessary to have 10 providers all operating their own equipment and their own fibre, but there's little practical reason not to make space for at least 2-3 providers all the way to the local telco cabinets (even if not immediately), and allow the subscribers connection to be reconnected to the equipment of any of these based on the subscribers wishes.

Re: AT&T Pretends It, Too, Will Build A 1 Gigabit Network

#52

Post by vidarh »

raldi wrote: post #30
jtchang wrote: post #2

I am so glad Google is putting AT&T (and the other broadband providers) in the hot seat. Sadly I don't think San Francisco will get Google Fiber anytime soon. Why is it we don't even have Verizon FIOS?!

Because this is what happens when you try to do stuff like that in the Bay Area: http://sfcitizen.com/blog/2011/11/15/no-att-lightspeed-inter...

You have to ask why they required those freestanding boxes, instead of negotiate access to basement utility areas in buildings across the network. Boxes like that may be necessary in less built up areas, but in densely built areas they're a cost-cutting measure.

Maybe it wouldn't be profitable if they had to deal with extortionate landlords, but on the other hand it'd seem likely you'd find a sufficient number of building owners that'd be happy to allow space for cheap or nothing in order to ensure great access.

Re: AT&T Pretends It, Too, Will Build A 1 Gigabit Network

#53

Post by jiggy2011 »

jdietrich wrote: post #47

Here in the UK, we have a peculiar paradox regarding the rollout of fibre. We have what amounts to a telecoms duopoly, split between the old telephone monopoly (BT) and the sole national cable company (Virgin Media). BT cover every home, but Virgin Media serve only the most populous areas. BT are progressively upgrading their POTS network, while Virgin's network was FTTC from the start. BT only bother upgrading areas…

Yes, not to mention some rural areas which have no broadband at all and are still on 56k or satellite. In some cases locals have taken it into their own hands and established coops to build their own broadband systems.

Even if you have no interest in the internet, stuff like that has to hurt your house price.

Re: AT&T Pretends It, Too, Will Build A 1 Gigabit Network

#54

Post by walshemj »

josh2600 wrote: post #48
raldi wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because this is what happens when you try to do stuff like that in the Bay Area: http://sfcitizen.com/blog/2011/11/15/no-att-lightspeed-inter...

Sonic.net proposed gigabit in SF with 170 above ground repeaters compared to AT&Ts 800+. That also was voted down. It's not a sick joke, it's San Franciscan :/. I sometimes feel like we work in a city that's all things at once: tech bastion, hipster haven, and a home to a generation of hippies. There's a lot of culture and there's a part of it that hates ugly things and a part of it that hates technology and every ti…

Um you know that city wide wifi woudl require an insane amount of AP's and backhaul - hence why wimax doesnt seem to be going any where.

Re: AT&T Pretends It, Too, Will Build A 1 Gigabit Network

#55

Post by ditojim »

noonespecial wrote: post #24

As I recall, the telcos already got their chance to hook everyone up with fiber with super favorable terms from governments and huge tax breaks in the 90's. They made the promise, took the money and ran. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060131/2021240_F.shtml Google's turn.

that ain't right. let's ask for our money back..

Re: AT&T Pretends It, Too, Will Build A 1 Gigabit Network

#56

Post by walshemj »

mschuster91 wrote: post #38
sek wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah just got M-Net in January. But we are blessed compared to the rest of the country. Our genius federal government built the infrastructure first and then created a private monopoly who owns all of it. The worst of both worlds. The funny thing is they bought with all the money an US provider and are now the underdog over there.

We can blame Thatcher for introducing wide-spread privatization for this.

20+ years ago BT offered the then thatcher government FTC in return for a 20 year payback period - they where turned down as competition would magically build a competing network.

And of course vast amounts of capital was expended in building a cable network all the operators of which got into financial trouble and effectively got brought out of bankruptcy which is how virgin got its current network on the cheap.

Re: AT&T Pretends It, Too, Will Build A 1 Gigabit Network

#57

Post by UnoriginalGuy »

jdietrich wrote: post #47

Here in the UK, we have a peculiar paradox regarding the rollout of fibre. We have what amounts to a telecoms duopoly, split between the old telephone monopoly (BT) and the sole national cable company (Virgin Media). BT cover every home, but Virgin Media serve only the most populous areas. BT are progressively upgrading their POTS network, while Virgin's network was FTTC from the start. BT only bother upgrading areas…

In the UK in particular both broadband AND cellular/mobile service should be nationalised.

Both businesses and consumers NEED good quality infrastructure at an affordable price. Essentially the country's economic growth directly depends on it.

To accomplish that the government should control all fibre, all phone lines, and all cell towers. It should then re-sell access to these things to ISPs/telephone companies.

With this in place you might still buy your cable from Virgin and your mobile phone service from Orange, but Virgin and Orange would be renting space on the government's infrastructure to accomplish it.

Similar to the Network Rail model but less terrible.

Re: AT&T Pretends It, Too, Will Build A 1 Gigabit Network

#58

Post by UnoriginalGuy »

JeffArthur wrote: post #46
kalleboo wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The network is managed, and I think wisely so, in a way that EWZ grants equal access to private ISPs which then compete for customers. They don't act as an ISP. This is the model I see as ideal and it always baffles me why it's so rarely mentioned as an option. Make the fiber network a public grid like roads, water, sewer, power. Then sell access to private companies to deal with the connectivity, services (TV/VoIP…

Maybe I'm too cynical, but public utilities are often seen as the bad guys. Cries of "socialism" often deter anyone from championing a public good, even if it actually goes further toward creating a robust competitive economy.

Not a problem most of Europe has though. We love a good bit of socialism over here! ... Or most of us do anyway...

Re: AT&T Pretends It, Too, Will Build A 1 Gigabit Network

#59

Post by walshemj »

jthol wrote: post #37
kalleboo wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The network is managed, and I think wisely so, in a way that EWZ grants equal access to private ISPs which then compete for customers. They don't act as an ISP. This is the model I see as ideal and it always baffles me why it's so rarely mentioned as an option. Make the fiber network a public grid like roads, water, sewer, power. Then sell access to private companies to deal with the connectivity, services (TV/VoIP…

That is simple. The city doesn't know what it's doing. They know Google does. They don't have to give any money to do it, just not charge Google to put their stuff in. Essentially they have to do nothing, get an ass-load of credit for doing it, and if it all goes wrong... well how can you blame them for trusting the company that some people literally think IS the internet?

Even AT&T knows how to run a service that requires customer contact/billing as telecoms does. Google has zero experience in both building/running/maintaining physical telco plant.

And Google has terrible /nonexistant customer service Ernestine the operator would be a major improvement in customer service for google.

Re: AT&T Pretends It, Too, Will Build A 1 Gigabit Network

#60

Post by walshemj »

UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #57
jdietrich wrote: post #47

Here in the UK, we have a peculiar paradox regarding the rollout of fibre. We have what amounts to a telecoms duopoly, split between the old telephone monopoly (BT) and the sole national cable company (Virgin Media). BT cover every home, but Virgin Media serve only the most populous areas. BT are progressively upgrading their POTS network, while Virgin's network was FTTC from the start. BT only bother upgrading areas…

In the UK in particular both broadband AND cellular/mobile service should be nationalised. Both businesses and consumers NEED good quality infrastructure at an affordable price. Essentially the country's economic growth directly depends on it. To accomplish that the government should control all fibre, all phone lines, and all cell towers. It should then re-sell access to these things to ISPs/telephone companies. Wit…

Even the SWP and Keith Have given up on that one :-) and network rail has worked so well hasn't it NOT!
Post reply on HN