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

AT&T won't upgrade millions of DSL users to fiber despite billions in subsidies

techdirt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 96 posts

Re: AT&T won't upgrade millions of DSL users to fiber despite billions in subsidies

#51

Post by martinald »

I don't understand AT&Ts strategy here. I assume the vast majority of AT&Ts network is overhead, and it is not expensive in the scheme of things to run PON fibre on the poles.

They are effectively giving away ~50% of their footprint to competitors, forever to avoid a one time capex cost.

Obviously there is going to be a portion of their network which is completely uneconomic to serve (requiring huge fibre runs for a handful of customers). But I do not think that is 50% of their userbase. Just checking a handful of 10-20k pop towns in some states they 'cover' and no FTTH is available.

Re: AT&T won't upgrade millions of DSL users to fiber despite billions in subsidies

#52

Post by ghaff »

wing-_-nuts wrote: post #44
mort96 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like a terrible idea. Satellite internet doesn't just cost money; having all those satellites in orbit have real non-monetary costs. They have a huge impact on astronomy, and they increase the probability of accidents which cause space debris.

>They have a huge impact on astronomy I'm of the opinion that commercial satellites should be required to be painted as dark as possible. If that requires extra engineering to dissipate heat, so be it.

It's reasonable that satellites should mitigate the impact on astronomy as much as possible. But it's not reasonable that we should seriously constrain the use of satellites because some astronomers using land-based optical telescopes are inconvenienced.

Re: AT&T won't upgrade millions of DSL users to fiber despite billions in subsidies

#53

Post by Roark66 »

hn_acker wrote: post #27
_fat_santa wrote: post #14

My first thought is "ok well then give the cash to a company that is actually willing to do it". IMO Starlink would be the best option for these rural areas, simply based off the fact that they have a track record of providing broadband to very rural areas + they don't have to run any fiber to connect a new location. Starlink is very expensive though which is where I would expect a govt subsidy to step in and bring t…

Starlink has about 4 million customers right now, but considering that Starlink is struggling with congestion in the US, there will be a gap of millions of rural US households who would be best served by fiber. And regardless, fiber is the best long-term internet access medium, because whatever latency problems fiber has now can be improved by changing the devices sending data through the fibers without replacing the…

Personally I think 5g is the way to go. Free more spectrum from the old TV channels (DVB-T is a lot more efficient in terms of spectrum use), this will cover rural use.

10 years ago I would never think I would say that, but I'm happy with LTE at 50MB down, 15up. The problem? No new lte equipment manufactured in western countries. You want cat 16+ modems? ZTE and Huawei are the only ones to sell you one. And their software not only spies for the Chinese Communist Party. It is also shit (I know, I bought a zte modem to marvel at my 100MB down speeds, o ly to rip it out 2 days later in discust after all my voice calls sounded as if I was on half a Meg if I didn't restart the thing daily (no, it only has automated restart as a weekly option in software). So my old tp-link was installed back in its box on the mast.

So we need more work done here to make 5g happen. Chinese will no do it for us (especially now that their economy is failing).

Re: AT&T won't upgrade millions of DSL users to fiber despite billions in subsidies

#55

Post by wing-_-nuts »

ghaff wrote: post #52
wing-_-nuts wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They have a huge impact on astronomy I'm of the opinion that commercial satellites should be required to be painted as dark as possible. If that requires extra engineering to dissipate heat, so be it.

It's reasonable that satellites should mitigate the impact on astronomy as much as possible. But it's not reasonable that we should seriously constrain the use of satellites because some astronomers using land-based optical telescopes are inconvenienced.

How would painting a satellite black 'seriously constrain' them? Why do we let corporations foist externalities on science and the general public? Either you can engineer a solution, or you can't, and if you can't, you don't belong in space.

Re: AT&T won't upgrade millions of DSL users to fiber despite billions in subsidies

#56

Post by Neonlicht »

reverendsteveii wrote: post #15

This thing where the government funds R&D for private corporations and then the corporations get to keep all the profits because tHey tAkE AlL tHe RiSk is pretty amazing. I'm a stockholder in several fortune 50 companies except my stock is non-voting, doesn't pay dividends, I don't get to pick which stock I buy and I don't ever get to sell it or borrow against it.

As I understand it the US government is why every American home- from the deserts in Nevada to the mountains in Virginia- has electricity. And that investment has paid for itself a million times over.

Re: AT&T won't upgrade millions of DSL users to fiber despite billions in subsidies

#57

Post by mort96 »

jayd16 wrote: post #48
mort96 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like a terrible idea. Satellite internet doesn't just cost money; having all those satellites in orbit have real non-monetary costs. They have a huge impact on astronomy, and they increase the probability of accidents which cause space debris.

So for the space debris argument, is humanity just not supposed to have satellites? Like should we phase out the entire concept? Do we expect to solve the issue somehow and then open up space? Are some satellites okay and it's just a value judgment of the clear worth of one more satellite against the unquantifiable risk of possible downside?

We should recognize space in orbit as precious and make intelligent decisions about how to best make use of it. That means we don't waste a ton of it just because the government can't get AT&T to build what they're paid to build.

Re: AT&T won't upgrade millions of DSL users to fiber despite billions in subsidies

#58

Post by BrianGragg »

Neonlicht wrote: post #56
reverendsteveii wrote: post #15

This thing where the government funds R&D for private corporations and then the corporations get to keep all the profits because tHey tAkE AlL tHe RiSk is pretty amazing. I'm a stockholder in several fortune 50 companies except my stock is non-voting, doesn't pay dividends, I don't get to pick which stock I buy and I don't ever get to sell it or borrow against it.

As I understand it the US government is why every American home- from the deserts in Nevada to the mountains in Virginia- has electricity. And that investment has paid for itself a million times over.

As a loan and not subsidies/grant. A ton of rural nonprofit electric cooperatives started out of this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_Electrification_Act

Re: AT&T won't upgrade millions of DSL users to fiber despite billions in subsidies

#59

Post by ghaff »

wing-_-nuts wrote: post #55
ghaff wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's reasonable that satellites should mitigate the impact on astronomy as much as possible. But it's not reasonable that we should seriously constrain the use of satellites because some astronomers using land-based optical telescopes are inconvenienced.

How would painting a satellite black 'seriously constrain' them? Why do we let corporations foist externalities on science and the general public? Either you can engineer a solution, or you can't, and if you can't, you don't belong in space.

I don't design satellites so I don't know. As I wrote, if there are reasonable measures that can be taken to reduce the effect of satellites on astronomers (or potentially creating space debris) they should be taken. However, there's a clear trend towards more (cheaper) satellites that serve useful purposes. And I very much doubt the public cares much about any inconveniences it presents to academics in this case.

Re: AT&T won't upgrade millions of DSL users to fiber despite billions in subsidies

#60

Post by dfedbeef »

jayd16 wrote: post #48
mort96 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like a terrible idea. Satellite internet doesn't just cost money; having all those satellites in orbit have real non-monetary costs. They have a huge impact on astronomy, and they increase the probability of accidents which cause space debris.

So for the space debris argument, is humanity just not supposed to have satellites? Like should we phase out the entire concept? Do we expect to solve the issue somehow and then open up space? Are some satellites okay and it's just a value judgment of the clear worth of one more satellite against the unquantifiable risk of possible downside?

The downside for astronomy is immediately quantifiable and not theoretical...
Post reply on HN