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

141–149 of 149 posts

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

#141

Post by samegreatsleeve »

josh2600 wrote: post #130
samegreatsleeve wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're kidding right? The issue is not a lack of entrepreneurs.

Forgive me for my ignorance, but if rural telcos are building their own networks, what is to stop you from also building your own Network? Am I missing something?

what rural telco is building their own network?

in canada, the taxpayers built the network, then a corrupt government signed it over to a private cartel so they could charge rent.

it sounds like you're making some kind of Ayn Rand free market allusion. free markets dont apply when Dagne Taggart owns the government and closes all barriers to entry so that her railroads will never have meaningful competition.

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

#142

Post by ukandy »

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.

In the UK it's normally a few local individuals bonding ADSL lines together at point x where the service is an acceptable speed. A few microwave links later and it's ready to be consumed by 10-100 people. It's not real competition, it's not cheap, and it's not well support.

It's a poor replacement for fibre to the cabinet.

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

#143

Post by josh2600 »

walshemj wrote: post #133
josh2600 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Less than 100M to implement and under 10M to maintain per year.

I definitely don't think it's expensive compared to the benefits. Personally, if I'm pipe dreaming, I'd rather have ubiquitous 1gigabit fiber, which google pegged at 11Billion for almost all of the US to be covered.

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

#144

Post by josh2600 »

samegreatsleeve wrote: post #141
josh2600 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forgive me for my ignorance, but if rural telcos are building their own networks, what is to stop you from also building your own Network? Am I missing something?

what rural telco is building their own network? in canada, the taxpayers built the network, then a corrupt government signed it over to a private cartel so they could charge rent. it sounds like you're making some kind of Ayn Rand free market allusion. free markets dont apply when Dagne Taggart owns the government and closes all barriers to entry so that her railroads will never have meaningful competition.

You are talking about terrestrial networks; that's not what WISPs are building. In a number of developing countries, the ground networks are owned and regulated, but wireless operators are not regulated in the same way.

In San Francisco we have a TON of small wireless ISPs fulfilling the needs of the companies that do business here, without using the last mile telco access.

I'm not living in a dystopian Ayn Rand reality; I'm suggesting an alternative method of delivery, one which is not subject to the same regulatory hurdles.

Of course you can't go and jack into BT's network and undercut them, but you can probably build a WISP without running afoul of the law.

Please correct me if I'm mistaken :).

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

#145

Post by [deleted] »

josh2600 wrote: post #144
samegreatsleeve wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what rural telco is building their own network? in canada, the taxpayers built the network, then a corrupt government signed it over to a private cartel so they could charge rent. it sounds like you're making some kind of Ayn Rand free market allusion. free markets dont apply when Dagne Taggart owns the government and closes all barriers to entry so that her railroads will never have meaningful competition.

You are talking about terrestrial networks; that's not what WISPs are building. In a number of developing countries, the ground networks are owned and regulated, but wireless operators are not regulated in the same way. In San Francisco we have a TON of small wireless ISPs fulfilling the needs of the companies that do business here, without using the last mile telco access. I'm not living in a dystopian Ayn Rand real…

[deleted]

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

#146

Post by samegreatsleeve »

josh2600 wrote: post #144
samegreatsleeve wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what rural telco is building their own network? in canada, the taxpayers built the network, then a corrupt government signed it over to a private cartel so they could charge rent. it sounds like you're making some kind of Ayn Rand free market allusion. free markets dont apply when Dagne Taggart owns the government and closes all barriers to entry so that her railroads will never have meaningful competition.

You are talking about terrestrial networks; that's not what WISPs are building. In a number of developing countries, the ground networks are owned and regulated, but wireless operators are not regulated in the same way. In San Francisco we have a TON of small wireless ISPs fulfilling the needs of the companies that do business here, without using the last mile telco access. I'm not living in a dystopian Ayn Rand real…

You may be right about WISPs.

I was referring to cellular networks and wired networks.

I'm guessing the hurdle is still legal/political. I'm gonna look into this, thanks for the insight

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

#147

Post by officemonkey »

walshemj wrote: post #134
officemonkey wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Actually, that's not a bad price, considering that they get to use the outlier every time they need to justify not providing service to remote customers.

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

#148

Post by josh2600 »

samegreatsleeve wrote: post #146
josh2600 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are talking about terrestrial networks; that's not what WISPs are building. In a number of developing countries, the ground networks are owned and regulated, but wireless operators are not regulated in the same way. In San Francisco we have a TON of small wireless ISPs fulfilling the needs of the companies that do business here, without using the last mile telco access. I'm not living in a dystopian Ayn Rand real…

You may be right about WISPs. I was referring to cellular networks and wired networks. I'm guessing the hurdle is still legal/political. I'm gonna look into this, thanks for the insight

No worries. Check out the meshpotato. If you're really gonna do it, this is the key to service delivery.

http://villagetelco.org/mesh-potato/

Basically it's an Analog Telephone Adapter and a Fixed Wireless receiver built into one, so for a very small price you can deliver bandwidth+telephony to your users.

Cellular and Wired are completely fubarr'd, that's why Africa bypassed them.

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

#149

Post by walshemj »

officemonkey wrote: post #147
walshemj wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Actually, that's not a bad price, considering that they get to use the outlier every time they need to justify not providing service to remote customers.

Well it was over the max allowed for providing service - normally they hit the government up for subsidy to provide service to the highlands and islands.
Post reply on HN