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

71–80 of 149 posts

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

#71

Post by eyko »

WhaleBiologist wrote: post #67
UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's a good idea in theory. In practice a conservative government will end up selling off and privatizing the company. Subsequent governments will still act like they own it though, because that one company now controls 99% of the country's infrastructure. The share price will then stagnate forever. Kinda damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Can a conservative government also privatize public roads and pathways? I mean, nowadays it can be argued that broadband/communication is as important as the transportation network. It's at the core of our day to day communications. Although if public roads can be sold to be managed by private companies, then we're screwed in both situations. But I'd rather have my tax money going to pay for infrastructure and innovation than to bailout this or that bank.

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

#72

Post by ricw »

ukandy wrote: post #70
jiggy2011 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The government targets for rural areas is a joke, and damaging to the economy. Not helped by 4G rollout 'issues'. We have a microwave link on the church tower to cover the village here. It really shouldn't be left up to the locals to manage their own network.

Why not? You get a better service and its likely going to be cheaper. I wouldn't see any advantage of having companies like AT&T neglect such areas. Get the real competition going.

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

#73

Post by ricw »

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…

That's a terrible idea. You probably can't remember how bad the telephone services were when they were nationalised. Having to wait 6-12 months for a line was the norm. Prices were high.

People seems to forget just how badly state run services typically are, even compared to AT&T and the like..

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

#74

Post by ricw »

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.

And thank her for what the competition has brought us. One of the fastest and cheapest broadband Internet that I know of.

Just some facts of pre-privatisation: it typically took 6-12 months for bit to install a landline when it was state owned. Now: 0-4 weeks. Not to mention how much cheaper it is £4.99 for a broadband line?! It's insane!

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

#75

Post by anomie »

ricw wrote: post #73
UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's a terrible idea. You probably can't remember how bad the telephone services were when they were nationalised. Having to wait 6-12 months for a line was the norm. Prices were high. People seems to forget just how badly state run services typically are, even compared to AT&T and the like..

My father was a surveyor in the city of London who worked on new office construction. He used to tell me how back in the days of nationalised phone service the first thing you did when you were building a new office building, before you'd even laid the foundations, was to order the phone lines, otherwise they wouldn't be ready in time for opening the building

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

#76

Post by kayoone »

ricw wrote: post #73
UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's a terrible idea. You probably can't remember how bad the telephone services were when they were nationalised. Having to wait 6-12 months for a line was the norm. Prices were high. People seems to forget just how badly state run services typically are, even compared to AT&T and the like..

infrastructure provided by the government which sells it to ISPs that hunt for customers. That models work pretty well already in many cities and small countries.

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

#77

Post by soren_dahl »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #53
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.

I'm currently trying to buy a house in UK, I check each potential purchase for distance to cabinet and FTCC on the cabinet. In most cases not having a nearby cabinet (<2KM) has been the deciding factor in not putting an offer in on that house (typically in this area that means a speed of ~1MBps).

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

#78

Post by glomph »

anomie wrote: post #75
ricw wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a terrible idea. You probably can't remember how bad the telephone services were when they were nationalised. Having to wait 6-12 months for a line was the norm. Prices were high. People seems to forget just how badly state run services typically are, even compared to AT&T and the like..

My father was a surveyor in the city of London who worked on new office construction. He used to tell me how back in the days of nationalised phone service the first thing you did when you were building a new office building, before you'd even laid the foundations, was to order the phone lines, otherwise they wouldn't be ready in time for opening the building

Doesn't that makes sense anyway? It isn't like have to get your phone lines after anything else.

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

#79

Post by jiggy2011 »

ricw wrote: post #72
ukandy wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government targets for rural areas is a joke, and damaging to the economy. Not helped by 4G rollout 'issues'. We have a microwave link on the church tower to cover the village here. It really shouldn't be left up to the locals to manage their own network.

Why not? You get a better service and its likely going to be cheaper. I wouldn't see any advantage of having companies like AT&T neglect such areas. Get the real competition going.

A lot of these services can be pretty laggy and at times unreliable. Good broadband ultimately needs fiber which requires capital and people who can dig up streets etc.

Most telcos will work on the basis of recouping this after X number of years, but can only do so because they have deep pockets. Putting fiber into west london is a no brainer, putting fiber into a village with ~300 residents , half of whom are over 65; not so much.

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

#80

Post by dalke »

josh2600 wrote: post #20
mschuster91 wrote: post #5

Is it just European bias or is the US largely near a 3rd world country in terms of internet broadband access?

Bias, sort of. The US is actually two separate but interlinked networks. On the one hand, residential service is 3rd world in most areas. On the other hand, I would argue that the US has the only first world broadband economy, which is our commercial network. The real networks in the US are very fast, 100gigabit fast at the core, but they slow down when you get to residences. Between Datacenters, the Internet is real…

When I read elsewhere "We saw a lot of 100 GbE deployments primarily in core networks over the past couple of years, and now 100 GbE peering is taking off too. Several IXPs around the world, most of whom are Brocade customers, have announced the availability of 100 GbE peering ports or the intent offer them this year: AMS-IX (Amsterdam), DE-CIX (Frankfurt), JPIX (Tokyo), JPNAP (Tokyo), LINX (London), Netnod (Stockholm) and NIX.CZ (Prague)."

I can't help but think that European data centers have core internet of 100Gb as well. Following up on that Stockholm company, http://www.netnod.se/bahnhof-becomes-first-netnod-100-gbps-c... says "Netnod is one out of only four Internet Exchanges in the world that offers 100 GE services." Elsewhere, euNetworks Group Ltd says "The new 100G capability is available between the key cities of Frankfurt, London, Amsterdam and Paris, and also between Dusseldorf, Hamburg, Dublin, and Manchester. " (These are from last year.)

It's therefore hard for me to believe "that the US has the only first world broadband economy" given that many other non-US cities have 100 Gbit service.

I also think it's a bit disingenuous to split a country into its first-world and third-worlds parts. A third-world country can have parts which are very first-world. I think an aspect of being first-world is that private people also have access to good services. In Stockholm, for example, 100 Mbit residential fiber is about $60/month.

Post reply on HN