That's a poor poker face, AT&T.
AT&T Pretends It, Too, Will Build A 1 Gigabit Network
81–90 of 149 posts
Re: AT&T Pretends It, Too, Will Build A 1 Gigabit Network
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
We can blame Thatcher for introducing wide-spread privatization for this.
And thank her for what the competition has brought us. One of the fastest and cheapest broadband Internet that I know of. Just some facts of pre-privatisation: it typically took 6-12 months for bit to install a landline when it was state owned. Now: 0-4 weeks. Not to mention how much cheaper it is £4.99 for a broadband line?! It's insane!
Well, the price difference is largely because the investion cost of building the infrastructure is long since paid back, so all that has to be paid for now is a little maintenance and customer service.
Re: AT&T Pretends It, Too, Will Build A 1 Gigabit Network
#83This reminds me a bit of the situation we had in Zurich. The (city owned) electric utility had a few hundred million reserves and decided to invest it into a fiber network. Actually - since the utility was owned by the city - the decision was based on a popular referendum, which sailed through. Needless to say that the established telcos and cable providers fought tooth and nail to kill the referendum. The interestin…
> The network is managed, and I think wisely so, in a way that EWZ grants equal access to private ISPs which then compete for customers. They don't act as an ISP. This is the model I see as ideal and it always baffles me why it's so rarely mentioned as an option. Make the fiber network a public grid like roads, water, sewer, power. Then sell access to private companies to deal with the connectivity, services (TV/VoIP…
I don't understand why the cities would give so much free stuff to Google for them to set up their fiber network instead of just... setting up their own fiber network that's then actually owned by the public.
Because cities don't have the first clue about running a fiber network. As is the case with most of the other stuff they get involved in.
Re: AT&T Pretends It, Too, Will Build A 1 Gigabit Network
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a good idea in theory. In practice a conservative government will end up selling off and privatizing the company. Subsequent governments will still act like they own it though, because that one company now controls 99% of the country's infrastructure. The share price will then stagnate forever. Kinda damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Can a conservative government also privatize public roads and pathways? I mean, nowadays it can be argued that broadband/communication is as important as the transportation network. It's at the core of our day to day communications. Although if public roads can be sold to be managed by private companies, then we're screwed in both situations. But I'd rather have my tax money going to pay for infrastructure and innova…
There are privatized "public" roads in the US. They are called "tollways"
Re: AT&T Pretends It, Too, Will Build A 1 Gigabit Network
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
We can blame Thatcher for introducing wide-spread privatization for this.
And thank her for what the competition has brought us. One of the fastest and cheapest broadband Internet that I know of. Just some facts of pre-privatisation: it typically took 6-12 months for bit to install a landline when it was state owned. Now: 0-4 weeks. Not to mention how much cheaper it is £4.99 for a broadband line?! It's insane!
I recall visiting my grandparents in Wales many years ago. Something that was astounding was that they paid every time you lifted the handset (a dial-tone access fee?). And then paid some more, depending on where you called. International calls required booking in advance.
Re: AT&T Pretends It, Too, Will Build A 1 Gigabit Network
#86Here in the UK, we have a peculiar paradox regarding the rollout of fibre. We have what amounts to a telecoms duopoly, split between the old telephone monopoly (BT) and the sole national cable company (Virgin Media). BT cover every home, but Virgin Media serve only the most populous areas. BT are progressively upgrading their POTS network, while Virgin's network was FTTC from the start. BT only bother upgrading areas…
Yes, not to mention some rural areas which have no broadband at all and are still on 56k or satellite. In some cases locals have taken it into their own hands and established coops to build their own broadband systems. Even if you have no interest in the internet, stuff like that has to hurt your house price.
This is why Google Fiber is (probably) not going to have that big of an impact as people hope it will.
Internet connectivity is geographically bounded, and to be disruptive, you need to cover most areas. This is quite unlike other disruptive technology that e.g. Apple have produced, which isn't constrained by geography.
If Google Fiber never comes to your state/county/city, you'll have just as crappy and expensive service as you had before - the existing providers will try to squeeze out as much as possible - which they can continue to do until there's competition in that geographic area
Re: AT&T Pretends It, Too, Will Build A 1 Gigabit Network
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think its bias. I cannot get DSL, CABLE, Fiber-anything... My choices are: Dialup, Satellite, or wireless internet. I can get 3G cell coverage -- sometimes. My street does have cable television, they just refuse to service the area with internet access. My country has an exclusivity agreement with this cable provider, so no other providers can come into the area. The sickening factor for me is the fact that I…
> My county has an exclusivity agreement with this cable provider, so no other providers can come into the area I see this over and over, and I don't understand WHY a local government would ever do this. What do they get out of these exclusivity deals? Meanwhile in my old town in Sweden, the city-owned power company built a supplier-neutral fiber network to promote competition (and a price war).
> I see this over and over, and I don't understand WHY a local government would ever do this. What do they get out of these exclusivity deals?
Short-term available money, e.g. to fund urgent renovation, pay back overdue loans or fund federally mandated services. The latter is popular in Germany, the federal government forces availability of services like child daycare paid by regional authorities, but the federal government doesn't have to foot the bill.
Re: AT&T Pretends It, Too, Will Build A 1 Gigabit Network
#88I love the disclaimer at the bottom:
"Information set forth in this press release contains financial estimates and other forward-looking statements that are subject to risks and uncertainties, and actual results might differ materially. "
Re: AT&T Pretends It, Too, Will Build A 1 Gigabit Network
#89Here in the UK, we have a peculiar paradox regarding the rollout of fibre. We have what amounts to a telecoms duopoly, split between the old telephone monopoly (BT) and the sole national cable company (Virgin Media). BT cover every home, but Virgin Media serve only the most populous areas. BT are progressively upgrading their POTS network, while Virgin's network was FTTC from the start. BT only bother upgrading areas…
In the UK in particular both broadband AND cellular/mobile service should be nationalised. Both businesses and consumers NEED good quality infrastructure at an affordable price. Essentially the country's economic growth directly depends on it. To accomplish that the government should control all fibre, all phone lines, and all cell towers. It should then re-sell access to these things to ISPs/telephone companies. Wit…
Another model is to separate the entities that own and sell the infrastructure from the entities who own and sell the service.
It's all still privatized but there is no monopoly.
Re: AT&T Pretends It, Too, Will Build A 1 Gigabit Network
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because this is what happens when you try to do stuff like that in the Bay Area: http://sfcitizen.com/blog/2011/11/15/no-att-lightspeed-inter...
Sonic.net proposed gigabit in SF with 170 above ground repeaters compared to AT&Ts 800+. That also was voted down. It's not a sick joke, it's San Franciscan :/. I sometimes feel like we work in a city that's all things at once: tech bastion, hipster haven, and a home to a generation of hippies. There's a lot of culture and there's a part of it that hates ugly things and a part of it that hates technology and every ti…
The problem is that we grant each and every individual de facto filibuster power over any construction project. CEQA is so broad and vague that all you need to do is come up with some crazy, tenuous claim that the environment will be impacted in some way, and even if your claim has no merit and you can get no fellow citizens to support you, you still get to obstruct the development process for years.