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

131–140 of 149 posts

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

#131

Post by chrisro »

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.

Um, middle of nowhere is where food is grown and livestock are raised. It'd be disastrous to not have people living there doing these things. As more services move online, it is a public good to ensure all constituencies have access.

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

#132

Post by walshemj »

_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…

Thers a world of difference in doing a small network of say 3 buildings and 3k ports ie what you bog standard CCNA can do. And building infrastructure including the local loop is quite different to a few custom DC's which is where Googles experience lies.

Theres the whole "oles and poles" aspect and providing power to the cabs and the plant to name but two diferences.

and in Google datacentres they don't care of a blade or a rack drops off but in this case thats x subs that have just lost service.

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

#133

Post by walshemj »

josh2600 wrote: post #129
walshemj wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Insane is relative, backhaul is also relative. I don't think WiMax was meant to solve the problems to which people have applied it. If you look at WiMax actual range, it's quite good, but the advertised range is at least double (hence all of the big ClearWire lawsuits). I don't think setting up city wide wifi is unreasonable with present technology. I think it's an entirely attainable goal, the things that hold it ba…

Sf has a population of over 6 and a half million and covers 600 square Km. I woudl love to see your estimate for how much that woudl cost to build and maintain.

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

#134

Post by walshemj »

officemonkey wrote: post #111
jiggy2011 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 blog…

It can cost a metric fuckton of money. When I worked up in scotland for BT the press officer for Scotland told me a story about how BT had miscalculated the cost of providing service to a very remote location and ended up having to pay around £200,000 to provide service to one property.

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

#135

Post by tiglionabbit »

knowaveragejoe wrote: post #94
nknighthb wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What major metropolitan areas? Would San Francisco or Los Angeles count?

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

#136

Post by kalleboo »

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?

> That is simple. The city doesn't know what it's doing. They know Google does

In either case they're "picking winners". They also "know" that Comcast, Time Warner, etc "know what they're doing", and we've all seen how that turned out. At least if they're the one commissioning it, they have any kind of power to fix things when they go wrong.

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

#137

Post by robflynn »

noonespecial wrote: post #13
robflynn wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think its bias. I cannot get DSL, CABLE, Fiber-anything... My choices are: Dialup, Satellite, or wireless internet. I can get 3G cell coverage -- sometimes. My street does have cable television, they just refuse to service the area with internet access. My country has an exclusivity agreement with this cable provider, so no other providers can come into the area. The sickening factor for me is the fact that I…

We lived with that situation for years. Finally we banded together to start a WISP, signed a few people, and put up some antennas (with the blessing of local government) We then started passing out flyers. The flyers did it. The a cable company had everyone hooked up in less than 6 weeks. They had previously told the county that geography made this impossible while reupping their exclusivity contract.

That's not a bad idea. I'm going to look into this. Thanks!

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

#138

Post by robflynn »

driverdan wrote: post #107
robflynn wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think its bias. I cannot get DSL, CABLE, Fiber-anything... My choices are: Dialup, Satellite, or wireless internet. I can get 3G cell coverage -- sometimes. My street does have cable television, they just refuse to service the area with internet access. My country has an exclusivity agreement with this cable provider, so no other providers can come into the area. The sickening factor for me is the fact that I…

Have you considered moving?

I have. I popped back into into the middle of nowhere to help take care of some family things. Fortunately and unfortunately, I landed a programming gig while here with a great company. The pay is not market rate but I love the company and what they do (think non-profit free netflix for deaf/blind students with educational materials.)

I'll end up heading back to California eventually.

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

#139

Post by robflynn »

shmerl wrote: post #11
robflynn wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think its bias. I cannot get DSL, CABLE, Fiber-anything... My choices are: Dialup, Satellite, or wireless internet. I can get 3G cell coverage -- sometimes. My street does have cable television, they just refuse to service the area with internet access. My country has an exclusivity agreement with this cable provider, so no other providers can come into the area. The sickening factor for me is the fact that I…

> I can SEE houses with time warner service from the end of my driveway. They just can't go that extra half mile. Is there a way to create some local network with people who have access in that half mile? Then you can share the bandwidth accessible from their location.

My father works with the guy (or did before he retired) and he's cool with us putting up a tower if we want. Unfortunately, line of site is iffy due to the tree coverage on that end of the property.

There is a company here that does fiber to place of business for either corporations or schools. Unfortunately, it will cost me about $5000 to get everything set up (having the cable run, etc.) and about $120/mo for 10/10.

There's another fiber company in the next county over that says they plan on expanding into the area later this year. I don't know how serious they are, but they offer 50/50, 100/100, and are working on building out gigabit service.

That would be nice.

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

#140

Post by jdietrich »

rayiner wrote: post #117
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…

The absurdity is the duplication of infrastructure. Half of the money being spent on providing fibre connections is effectively wasted, because the market incentives do not align with the priorities of society.

You present a false dichotomy between libertarianism and plutocracy. The US is exceptionally bad at market regulation by developed-world standards, largely because of how politics in the US is funded. The obvious counter-example is South Korea, where the government are providing billions of usd in funding to ensure universal service of high-speed broadband. That's no free lunch either, but the costs of a digital divide can't be ignored.

Broadband is an increasingly vital infrastructure, arguably as important as roads or mains water. The national economy is increasingly dependent on the ubiquitous availability of fast internet connections. We should take seriously the social responsibility to provide and maintain that infrastructure.

Post reply on HN