31–40 of 66 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I live in Westminister, MD. Will you guys be hiring and if so for what type of positions?
Yeah, I expect we'll have a few more openings there. Right now we're hiring a City Manager for Westminster - details are here: http://www.tucows.com/careers/
I'm excited to potentially use/sign up. Not sure if Kate Wagner Rd and Ct is on your list. Fingers crossed!
> Crazy fast How fast is crazy fast? Symmetric Gbit? How much does it cost? Can you use your own router? Net neutrality? This page really sucks. They should learn from fiber7[0] feature list and what to put on the website. [0] https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=h... (disclaimer: i'm a very happy fiber7 customer)
symetric, $89/mos, use your own router, NN before it was cool. (oBDisclaimer: I work for Ting)
The state refused to give Verizon tax breaks years ago, so they abandoned their plans to ever deploy FiOS within Boston city limits. Surrounding communities have it, but we don't -- only Comcast. Now, to be fair to Comcast, I've never had a service problem save for 1-2 days in the past 6 years. They were also very quick on IPv6 and 6-to-4, and they actually deliver the bandwidth I pay for. Yet I would gladly pay for yet more bandwidth.
In the Netherlands x% of a community had to sign up before they would roll out the system (to make sure that the ISP could recoup their costs). Am wondering if they plan to implement a similar system. On a sidenote: the largest telco dropped the price A LOT to compete with the FTTH provider but this pissed ppl off because they knew they had been ripped off for several years.
> In the Netherlands x% of a community had to sign up before they would roll out the system (to make sure that the ISP could recoup their costs). In most U.S. cities, this is illegal. In fact, Google got crucified when they did that originally for Fiber in Kansas City and a bunch of minority/low-income communities didn't make the list: http://www.wired.com/2012/09/google-fiber-digital-divide . Embarrassingly, the sig…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I live in Charlottesville and I, as a student, don't know anyone who is dissatisfied with their ISP. This is mostly a college town, and I think the students are the ones who would benefit most from higher bandwidth. To me, they don't seem dissatisfied enough to switch.
That's intersting. I know in Blacksburg, if this was to come to town, people would switch en masse. Other than internet on campus, the quality is terrible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In the Netherlands x% of a community had to sign up before they would roll out the system (to make sure that the ISP could recoup their costs). In most U.S. cities, this is illegal. In fact, Google got crucified when they did that originally for Fiber in Kansas City and a bunch of minority/low-income communities didn't make the list: http://www.wired.com/2012/09/google-fiber-digital-divide . Embarrassingly, the sig…
Can you explain why this is illegal in the US? It in the UK, there are a number of companies investing in rural fibre broadband for communities where 1. the area is not expected to receive FTTC from BT Openreach and 2. there is sufficient demand from the local residents (i.e. how many people have signed up).
Google simply will not build Fiber in places that aren't willing to waive that requirement. Conversely, other broadband providers would serve many places if cities were willing to waive those requirements.
Here in Baltimore, Verizon was ready to build FiOS, and in fact my building and a few others nearby has it because Verizon was able to do it without getting a city-wide franchise. Fiber deployment to the whole city fell through because Verizon wouldn't commit to wiring up the vast low-income areas of the city where people couldn't afford to subscribe anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In the Netherlands x% of a community had to sign up before they would roll out the system (to make sure that the ISP could recoup their costs). In most U.S. cities, this is illegal. In fact, Google got crucified when they did that originally for Fiber in Kansas City and a bunch of minority/low-income communities didn't make the list: http://www.wired.com/2012/09/google-fiber-digital-divide . Embarrassingly, the sig…
Can you explain why this is illegal in the US? It in the UK, there are a number of companies investing in rural fibre broadband for communities where 1. the area is not expected to receive FTTC from BT Openreach and 2. there is sufficient demand from the local residents (i.e. how many people have signed up).
So because of historical discrimination it's common for government to require providers to serve everyone in a area instead of just the profitable areas (e.g. people that would buy $100 IP+TV packages instead of basic 5Mbps internet).
In a few years, the US will have Internet speeds of a few years ago! Seriously, though, I hope they're laying fibre that will give them plenty of room to deliver at least 10Gb.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you explain why this is illegal in the US? It in the UK, there are a number of companies investing in rural fibre broadband for communities where 1. the area is not expected to receive FTTC from BT Openreach and 2. there is sufficient demand from the local residents (i.e. how many people have signed up).
Because there was a time when services were deployed in a discriminatory manner: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining So because of historical discrimination it's common for government to require providers to serve everyone in a area instead of just the profitable areas (e.g. people that would buy $100 IP+TV packages instead of basic 5Mbps internet).