AT&T Pretends It, Too, Will Build A 1 Gigabit Network • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by _mulder_ » Wed, Apr 10, 2013, 1:35 PM UTC

walshemj wrote: post #59

jthol wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

  Google has zero experience in both building/running/maintaining physical telco plant.

The network Google is deploying is nothing more than a bunch of glorified Ethernet network switches. I'm sure they have quite enough experience building/running/maintaining networks.. especially since it's well known that they get their own kit built specifically for them.

The Customer Service is an issue, but I think their innovative approach to CS could be one of the biggest benefits, throwing brains at problems as opposed to more clueless people answering phones seems like a good thing. Infact, on this note, analysing vast amounts of data for trends and problems is exactly the sort of thing Google is amazing at.. and most faults with internet service can be identified, and remotely resolved, in this very manner.

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

#92

Post by raldi » Wed, Apr 10, 2013, 1:38 PM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #52

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...

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 bui…

They need 24-hour immediate access to any box. That means it has to be somewhere accessible. And they can't bury them, because they need ventilation, and the ventilation unit would have to go above ground, and would be even bigger than the utility box was.

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

#93

Post by cloverich » Wed, Apr 10, 2013, 1:50 PM UTC

> Municipalities have been giving AT&T and other incumbents incredibly favorable deals for years, and AT&T has tended to return the favor by providing the bare minimum in quality of service to its broadband customers, while focusing most of its efforts on trying to block any hint of competition from showing up.

I"ve heard this a lot - I'd love to see some objective background information on this.

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

#94

Post by knowaveragejoe » Wed, Apr 10, 2013, 1:57 PM UTC

nknighthb wrote: post #41

tiglionabbit wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How? Are you in Google Kansas?

Comcast has had 100mbps service available in some areas for a while now.

Among many other ISPs. If you live in any of the major metropolitan areas it's the norm.

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

#95

Post by jdietrich » Wed, Apr 10, 2013, 1:58 PM UTC

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…

The Network Rail is what we've got already - BT Openreach provides the infrastructure, which is resold by myriad companies who have access on equal terms. The problem is that Openreach has no universal service commitment. Their customers are the ISPs, not end-users.

We've had nationalisation and it was a complete shambles. BT had no interest whatsoever in providing Broadband until Telewest came along. You couldn't even buy your own phone or answering machine until 1982 - before then, only a BT engineer was allowed to connect equipment to their network.

The straightforward solution is simply to offer a grant or tax credit to any company that provides the first high-speed connection to a house. Progressively increase the subsidy over a number of months or years to create a Dutch auction between BT, Virgin and whoever else throws their hat in the ring. This would progressively push up the LTV of customers relative to the cost of acquisition, creating the maximum number of connections at the minimum cost to the treasury.

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

#96

Post by knowaveragejoe » Wed, Apr 10, 2013, 1:59 PM UTC

derefr wrote: post #18

> AT&T's expanded fiber plans in Austin anticipate it will be granted the same terms and conditions as Google on issues such as geographic scope of offerings, rights of way, permitting, state licenses and any investment incentives. Sounds more like AT&T is expecting to make a deal with Google to resell bandwidth off Google's own fiber after Google puts up all the initial expense to lay it. That would indeed give them…

Isn't Google laying minimal fiber infrastructure because they bought a bunch of existing dark fiber years back?

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

#97

Post by talmand » Wed, Apr 10, 2013, 2:13 PM UTC

glomph wrote: post #78

anomie wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, it does not. In most cases it's not as if they had to lay down new copper from a central office to the new building or would have to run copper throughout the building. If the thing was built on top of existing infrastructure then it "should" not be a big deal to hook the building into said infrastructure. Of course, I say this without knowing the quality of the infrastructure in question.

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

#98

Post by jules » Wed, Apr 10, 2013, 2:15 PM UTC

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?

I noticed that there have been a lot of comments lately saying "Interesting, the US is nearly a 3rd world country in terms of measure X", where X is income distribution, incarceration rates, civil rights, certain diseases/causes of death, etc.

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

#99

Post by talmand » Wed, Apr 10, 2013, 2:15 PM UTC

jiggy2011 wrote: post #79

ricw wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 6…

I don't know about the rest of the world, but often in the US the choice is between laggy, unreliable local services or no service at all. Much too often the company that is supposed to service rural areas can't be bothered because it isn't economically viable. Although, it doesn't stop them from suing the locals because it's an unfair economic advantage if the locals decide to build their own.

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

#100

Post by TheCapn » Wed, Apr 10, 2013, 2:18 PM UTC

_mulder_ wrote: post #91

walshemj wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Google has zero experience in both building/running/maintaining physical telco plant. The network Google is deploying is nothing more than a bunch of glorified Ethernet network switches. I'm sure they have quite enough experience building/running/maintaining networks.. especially since it's well known that they get their own kit built specifically for them. The Customer Service is an issue, but I think their innovati…

Customer service, from the telecom standpoint, isn't so much about troubleshooting as it is with customer relations and dealings.

- Setting up billing and payments

- Altering billing payments

- Adjusting for outages

- Scheduling repair vans

- Scheduling installation

- Answering clueless customer questions

Now I completely understand how Google may just defer much of those types of issues to a central website but I know plenty of people that refuse to use a service because of lacking telephone support. Google might be happy going that way but I wouldn't pretend it is good CS.