Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Is Google Fiber the Country’s Only Super-Speed Internet?

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 62 posts

Re: Why Is Google Fiber the Country’s Only Super-Speed Internet?

#41

Post by rayiner »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #40
velodrome wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US should do what it does for gas mileage (CAFE Rules). A national roadmap for bandwidth speed (and latency).

This is actually not a bad idea. Or something similar but maybe even better: Set up a cross-ISP subsidy program. Whoever has the fastest connections in the country receives a subsidy and whoever has the slowest connections has to pay it. Don't even put bandwidth numbers in -- just rank them all by the speed of the unmetered connections they offer for less than $80/month, then the slowest 33% pays a substantial tax to…

That makes absolutely no sense. What would happen is that urban ISP's would win immediately, and then rural ISP's would be stuck basically cementing that lead in place by subsidizing the leaders' capital expenditures.

Re: Why Is Google Fiber the Country’s Only Super-Speed Internet?

#42

Post by bickfordb »

In the US it's often really hard to establish any kind of cabling network due to right of way laws. This appears to be the worse in metro areas with the richest NIMBYs such as San Francisco or Palo Alto despite having the large populations interested in super-speed internet.

Re: Why Is Google Fiber the Country’s Only Super-Speed Internet?

#43

Post by AnthonyMouse »

rayiner wrote: post #15

FiOS is already at the point where the bottleneck is usually the wifi network not the internet connection. The market for "tethered to your desk" home internet is probably not that big.

I think the problem is rather that "FiOS" is not the class of internet connection that most places in the United States currently have.

Re: Why Is Google Fiber the Country’s Only Super-Speed Internet?

#44

Post by georgemcbay »

fnayr wrote: post #38
georgemcbay wrote: post #11

Shaming won't work when so many places in the USA only have one viable cable provider. Here in my area of San Diego I'm stuck with Time Warner. Even ignoring the relatively slow speeds, I'd be happy just to not have my connection randomly disappear for about 5 minutes 2 or 3 times a day. I'd switch to a competitor in a second except there aren't any. The ISPs have no shame, unless you're willing to force real competi…

I'm in San Diego too. Do yourself a favor and switch to ATT Uverse Internet. ATT (maximum) gives you a consistent 3MBps versus Time Warners (maximum) 6MBps that averages closer to 1MBps.

Not available in my area. I've looked into the options extensively and the only thing in my exact area other than TWC is AT&T DSL and I'm pretty far from their closest central office here so the speeds would be the absolute minimum.

Re: Why Is Google Fiber the Country’s Only Super-Speed Internet?

#45

Post by AnthonyMouse »

rayiner wrote: post #41
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is actually not a bad idea. Or something similar but maybe even better: Set up a cross-ISP subsidy program. Whoever has the fastest connections in the country receives a subsidy and whoever has the slowest connections has to pay it. Don't even put bandwidth numbers in -- just rank them all by the speed of the unmetered connections they offer for less than $80/month, then the slowest 33% pays a substantial tax to…

That makes absolutely no sense. What would happen is that urban ISP's would win immediately, and then rural ISP's would be stuck basically cementing that lead in place by subsidizing the leaders' capital expenditures.

You're first assuming that there is such a thing as a rural or urban ISP. Have you seen the coverage map for AT&T or Comcast? They're all over the map.

But more than that, there is no reason to think that building a high speed network in a rural area would be impossible rather than merely expensive. So all they have to do is to do it first and they'll be the ones receiving the subsidy. And actually digging the hole in the ground is what costs a lot in rural areas, the terminating equipment doesn't cost anything more just because the wires are longer. So they install fiber to the home once and having paid that cost, the future upgrade costs become equalized with urban areas because all future upgrades come from upgrading the terminating equipment rather than having to put any new wires in the ground.

And if we ever want to have fiber in rural areas then that has to happen eventually anyway, so why put it off?

And, even if you're right, the result is still for urban ISPs to compete with each other to be the fastest and for rural ISPs to compete with each other to not be the slowest. The losers of that competition then have less profit for their shareholders -- or, if they lose very badly, their network is auctioned off to someone with more capital who can make the necessary upgrades. I am not seeing how we can lose here unless "we" are greedy telco shareholders who don't want to pay for upgrades.

Re: Why Is Google Fiber the Country’s Only Super-Speed Internet?

#46

Post by [deleted] »

pragmatic wrote: post #14

What would you do with more bandwidth?[1] I've discussed this with several of my friends. In our area, we have multiple providers and can get up to 100MB down/ 30 up with residential service. (You can get all you want if you pay business prices, I work at a company that sells that). 30/5 is the standard. So what would we do with more bandwidth? Netflix streams in high def. Games from Steam download quickly. My Voip p…

[deleted]

Re: Why Is Google Fiber the Country’s Only Super-Speed Internet?

#47

Post by rayiner »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #45
rayiner wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes absolutely no sense. What would happen is that urban ISP's would win immediately, and then rural ISP's would be stuck basically cementing that lead in place by subsidizing the leaders' capital expenditures.

You're first assuming that there is such a thing as a rural or urban ISP. Have you seen the coverage map for AT&T or Comcast? They're all over the map. But more than that, there is no reason to think that building a high speed network in a rural area would be impossible rather than merely expensive . So all they have to do is to do it first and they'll be the ones receiving the subsidy. And actually digging the hole…

One fiber run to a high rise in Chicago hits as many customers as wiring up an entire town in rural Illinois. The idea that ISP's that serve less populated areas could somehow beat ISP's that serve mostly urban areas is completely ridiculous. What would happen is that the urban ISP's would win the race, and the ISP's with low density service areas would just go out of business perpetually paying the subsidy.

It's like trying to incentivize competition in baseball by requiring losing teams to subsidize winning ones. Basically everyone would just be paying to make the Yankee's roster even more iron clad than it is now.

Re: Why Is Google Fiber the Country’s Only Super-Speed Internet?

#48

Post by rayiner »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #43
rayiner wrote: post #15

FiOS is already at the point where the bottleneck is usually the wifi network not the internet connection. The market for "tethered to your desk" home internet is probably not that big.

I think the problem is rather that "FiOS" is not the class of internet connection that most places in the United States currently have.

My point is that "super speed" Internet is pretty useless when wifi networks max out at 20-40 Mbps in practice. And while not everyone has access to 30 Mbps+ Internet, most people in urban areas do.

Re: Why Is Google Fiber the Country’s Only Super-Speed Internet?

#49

Post by AnthonyMouse »

rayiner wrote: post #47
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're first assuming that there is such a thing as a rural or urban ISP. Have you seen the coverage map for AT&T or Comcast? They're all over the map. But more than that, there is no reason to think that building a high speed network in a rural area would be impossible rather than merely expensive . So all they have to do is to do it first and they'll be the ones receiving the subsidy. And actually digging the hole…

One fiber run to a high rise in Chicago hits as many customers as wiring up an entire town in rural Illinois. The idea that ISP's that serve less populated areas could somehow beat ISP's that serve mostly urban areas is completely ridiculous. What would happen is that the urban ISP's would win the race, and the ISP's with low density service areas would just go out of business perpetually paying the subsidy. It's lik…

You're just making the argument that the amount of the cross-subsidy would have to be calibrated so that the losers are not bankrupted by it. We care about fairness in baseball because it's a game. Why do we care so much about it if this succeeds in getting the highrises in Chicago gigabit fiber, when up to this point we haven't been able to?

And let's go with it say you're right. Why can't we just create two or three classes of ISPs (like "cars" and "light trucks" for CAFE) based on their coverage density, so that rural and urban ISPs only compete with other rural and urban ISPs respectively?

Re: Why Is Google Fiber the Country’s Only Super-Speed Internet?

#50

Post by AnthonyMouse »

rayiner wrote: post #48
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the problem is rather that "FiOS" is not the class of internet connection that most places in the United States currently have.

My point is that "super speed" Internet is pretty useless when wifi networks max out at 20-40 Mbps in practice. And while not everyone has access to 30 Mbps+ Internet, most people in urban areas do.

Wifi networks max out at those speeds because "super speed" internet is elusive and so there is insufficient demand for faster/better wireless devices. 802.11n supports significantly higher speeds than that already, but nobody uses it because 802.11g is faster than most internet connections. Moreover, we're talking about building networks that haven't been built yet. By the time we build them there will likely be 802.11ac/802.11ad devices on the market that can handle even more.
Post reply on HN