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

#111

Post by officemonkey » Wed, Apr 10, 2013, 4:01 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…

>putting fiber into a village with ~300 residents , half of whom are over 65

Actually, that's probably a no brainer as well. A village of 300 can't cost _that_ much, and improving network connectivity to a small town means that town becomes more attractive to the people who will be inheriting and buying the homes once the 65-year olds shuffle off this mortal coil.

Also, don't knock seniors. My 77-year old father blogs daily and my 71-year old mother spends a lot of her time playing with her new iPad mini. They live in a small town with new fiber.

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

#112

Post by officemonkey » Wed, Apr 10, 2013, 4:03 PM UTC

TheCapn wrote: post #100

_mulder_ wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 kn…

This may be AT&T's core business, but I can tell you that they do not do it expertly.

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

#113

Post by jeffasinger » Wed, Apr 10, 2013, 4:05 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…

My Grandmother (75) is the member of my family with the highest speed connection.

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

#114

Post by petercooper » Wed, Apr 10, 2013, 4:19 PM UTC

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…

BT only bother upgrading areas to fibre where they've got competition from Virgin Media

I live in a small town in a very rural part of the country and there's no hope of cable ever reaching us.. but we got Infinity 2 FTTC last year FWIW. I think the council threw grant money at BT though ;-)

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

#115

Post by Symmetry » Wed, Apr 10, 2013, 4:20 PM UTC

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…

Well, in theory you can make just as good a case for the government providing internet access as the government providing roads. In practice I see two major problems, though. First, norms against the government denying the use of the roads to people are very strong, but there aren't really the same norms against the government refusing to provide the internet to people considered bad. The upgrade cycle for roads is also much, much slower than for internet connections.

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

#116

Post by jmharvey » Wed, Apr 10, 2013, 4:22 PM UTC

It might worth it to AT&T to actually build a 1 gigabit network to dissuade Google from encroaching on their territory in other cities. As the only gigabit player in a location, Google can charge users much higher rates than if they're one of two providers in the market. If AT&T sends the message that they're going to be in a two-player market in any location where AT&T is the incumbent broadband provider, Google might go after other markets, first.

Of course, that assumes that Google is rolling out fiber to the most profitable cities first, which might not be a valid assumption.

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

#117

Post by rayiner » Wed, Apr 10, 2013, 4:23 PM UTC

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…

What's absurd about it? It doesn't cost dramatically more to wire up a mile of fiber in a dense urban area (and in fact can be cheaper if you can re-use existing utility conduits), but can hit far more customers. So why shouldn't you expect fiber providers to only hit the densely populated areas?

And you can have government intervention, but much of the US's woes are the result of that intervention. US municipalities created all these monopolies in exchange for the guarantee that they would serve everyone and not just the most profitable people, and unsurprisingly those monopolies don't have much incentive to keep up with the latest in technology. But that's precisely the bargain all those municipalities made! There is no free lunch here.

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

#118

Post by rayiner » Wed, Apr 10, 2013, 4:24 PM UTC

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.

And it should affect house prices. It's inefficient to have people living in the middle of goddamn nowhere, and it makes no sense for the government to constantly subsidize doing so.

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

#119

Post by jimmaswell » Wed, Apr 10, 2013, 4:33 PM UTC

Symmetry wrote: post #115

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…

Well, in theory you can make just as good a case for the government providing internet access as the government providing roads. In practice I see two major problems, though. First, norms against the government denying the use of the roads to people are very strong, but there aren't really the same norms against the government refusing to provide the internet to people considered bad. The upgrade cycle for roads is a…

It's a lot easier to injure or kill someone with a car on a road than on the internet, though. I hope nothing like an internet license happens.

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

#120

Post by mhurron » Wed, Apr 10, 2013, 4:36 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #118

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.

And it should affect house prices. It's inefficient to have people living in the middle of goddamn nowhere, and it makes no sense for the government to constantly subsidize doing so.

'Middle of nowhere' is sometimes 2 miles from a town (with cable) or a mile from a regional airport.

We finally got 3MB DSL last year.