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

61–70 of 96 posts

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

#61

Post by ghaff »

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.

Every is a bit of an overstatement. Generators in some places are a thing. (And so are fairly large areas without houses.) But generally, yes, also subject to the caveats in another comment.

Satellite broadband does seem to be the "hack" for making locations that don't have broadband or really usable cell coverage in many cases practical.

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

#62

Post by umeshunni »

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.

Painting a satellite black wouldn't solve the problem that they would still block the stars behind them when passing overhead. Instead of light streaks, you now have dark streaks across a region of the sky.

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

#63

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

ChrisArchitect wrote: post #54

[dupe] Actual article: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/12/att-says-it-wont... Earlier discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42338721

Not quite a dupe because Techdirt typically adds details and background to these stories.

Karl Bode in particular has been writing about bad ISP behavior for longer - and more persistently - than most anyone. He brings it to the table.

I've been reading him for 20y. Over and over he's been the sole source of sunshine on certain dark telecom corners.

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

#64

Post by hn_acker »

Roark66 wrote: post #53
hn_acker wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sof…

5G networks need wired infrastructure to send internet data to towers within a few miles of the customer; fiber is the best option for those wires. And for the last few miles, fiber still has throughput and latency advantages over 5G [1].

[1] https://www.eff.org/wp/case-fiber-home-today-why-fiber-super...

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

#65

Post by ubnvfft »

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.

Also mind you when that “risk” comes knocking it results in mass layoffs. So who really took on that risk? The csuites or the wage workers?

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

#66

Post by linksnapzz »

mrbluecoat wrote: post #10

Is AT&T still around? Bell Labs is a long-faded memory at this point.

What is now "AT&T" is the former Baby Bell RBOC SBC, plus PacBell, plus a couple of other companies, which bought AT&T wireless & long-lines. Thus, SBC acquired and assumed the AT&T name from its former parent.

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

#67

Post by danans »

What this tells me is that industries with limited growth potential and who are focused on incremental rather than transformative technology do not respond to government carrots, and to the extent that they do anything, it is to arrange scenarios where they privatize the carrots and socialize the costs.

There is no return on investment for investments in rural fiber. Infrastructure needs a high density of users to be profitable.

If we really think that the speed and reliability of fiber service is important for rural users, we should directly subsidize it - like we do for Amtrak in the Great Plains states - and stop pretending like we care by paying off the corporations and their shareholders.

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

#68

Post by reverendsteveii »

ubnvfft wrote: post #65
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.

Also mind you when that “risk” comes knocking it results in mass layoffs. So who really took on that risk? The csuites or the wage workers?

The csuites who will vote themselves golden parachutes, the stockholders who got paid dividends this whole time and then will file for bankruptcy and settle their debts for whatever the company happens to own right now, or the people that lose their salary and house?

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

#69

Post by ChrisArchitect »

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #63
ChrisArchitect wrote: post #54

[dupe] Actual article: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/12/att-says-it-wont... Earlier discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42338721

Not quite a dupe because Techdirt typically adds details and background to these stories. Karl Bode in particular has been writing about bad ISP behavior for longer - and more persistently - than most anyone. He brings it to the table. I've been reading him for 20y. Over and over he's been the sole source of sunshine on certain dark telecom corners.

'not quite' doesn't cut it. The point is don't split up the discussion, which is over there. This one doesn't add as much to the arstechnica article. Share Karl's weird obtuse link-heavy writing style over there if need be.

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

#70

Post by mindslight »

nilamo wrote: post #9
PittleyDunkin wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What good will that do anyone? Just force them to do their job.

In a non-totalitarian state, fining them for the funds is how we force them to do it. It's not like we're going to start locking up executives for misappropriating public funds and defrauding the government, that's not a crime anyone cares about in this country.

no, the term you're looking for is specific performance. Having to abide by the terms of a contract is not "totalitarian". Doubly so when we're talking about a corporation (ie a government creation) and not individuals.
Post reply on HN