4 ms·

> every person in America doesn't need gigabit fiber right now That's a pretty bold claim. Granted, Gb fiber to the home has limited uses outside of high bit-r

by scoot 11y ago

> every person in America doesn't need gigabit fiber right now That's a pretty bold claim. Granted, Gb fiber to the home has limited uses outside of high bit-rate 4K / 8K TV; but to suggest that not a single individual out of 320M in the US (never min the rest of the world) needs Gb broadband? BS.

jauer 11y ago
I don't think he's saying no one needs gigabit fiber period, rather not everyone needs gig right now, which is demonstrably true. Even 4k is doable without gig using HEVC (50Mbps is typical ref: Wikipedia) and when uncompressed a gig isn't enough. Gig is cool and all but there are fairly large parts of the US where 10-30Mbps+ download with reasonable latency (not satellite) and no data caps (not cell) would be a gamechanger.
- sathackr 11y ago
  Yes. Most HD(1080p) video is 8mb/s or lower. I feel like Santa Claus most of the time because people are so thankful to even get 10mb/s. It makes my line of work very rewarding. You would be amazed at how quickly a 10mb/s internet connection will make you everyone's best friend. I get fed nice home cooked dinners, showered with praise, invited over for game night. Some of these people will do almost anything just for fast, reliable internet. One company I worked for about 10 years ago went out of business, many of the customers had my personal cell phone number. I was bombarded with calls for the following 5 years with their old customers begging me to somehow get them internet. I tried my best where I could, but just didn't have the financial means to help them.
phil21 11y ago
You can't even say 1gbps is close to "enough" in the immediate foreseeable future (decade+). The sheer innovation we're leaving on the table is insane to me with this thinking. Can no one imagine any use for massive amounts of data moving around the world other than consuming media? Have you not seen what is possible between moving from 1ge to 40g in the datacenter between servers? It's not logical to extend this thinking to the client eventually? I really don't understand it. I remember being a 14 year old kid on a 9600 baud modem, upgrading to 28k and realizing what just became theoretically possible and then watching it happen before my eyes at a breathtaking pace. I doubt today's 14 year olds are any less imaginative. I guarantee if you had 10ge available to every home in the US for $50/mo you would see start to see some cool stuff no one immediately thinks of. The fact you can't get $100/mo gige in major dense metro areas (in the US - Think Chicago, NYC, etc.) by now boggles my mind. What a huge competitive lead we gave up for no reason. How have we bogged down in so much bureaucracy and overhead that we can't make this profitable?
- sathackr 11y ago
  I agree. If you build it, they will come. And who knows what or who 'they' are. But while Google is spending millions putting fiber to every door in a few select cities, huge portions of the country still only have dial-up and satellite as options. That doesn't mean Google shouldn't be spending millions to do it. That would be the same argument as 'why are we spending billions to go to space when people are starving' -- I read an article once that I can't find now, it was titled something like 'why we should do awesome things'. Of course, we should feed the starving AND go to space AND do other awesome things. My main issue was, the article and company seemed to imply that the local WISP was impeding their ability to get funding to run fiber, when, for the last 10 years, that WISP was probably that community's only source of broadband. It did not say if they actively fought them, or it was simply their presence that was the issue.
  - jauer 11y ago
    A WISP (or any other provider) that provides 25Mbps download+some nominal upload to a area (and reports that on their bi-annual FCC form 477) would cause the area to be marked as "served" and thus ineligible for CAF funding. IIRC the USDA BTOP program which funded a lot of middle mile projects had similar restriction. From what I've seen this mostly spoils the traditional telcos (e.g. Centurylink & Frontier) because CAF (replacement for USF) won't pay for their upgrades (usually something like adding a VDSL2 DSLAM in a cabinet somewhere and running fiber back to their CO) when a high-performing WISP is in the area. Of course some little telcos that do FTTH are also affected.
    - sathackr 11y ago
      Interesting. Many WISPs like to exaggerate their coverage area to look bigger than they are (I don't get why it seems to be the goal of every small company to appear larger than they are...but that's another topic). I wonder how much damage this is doing by preventing CAF funding for areas a WISP claims but can't actually provide service to? IMO a WISP will always be a temporary solution. They serve as a good filler until it is financially feasible for a wireline(this includes fiber) provider to service the area. A WISP can put $15,000 in equipment on a tower they pay $750/month for and cover 300 square miles of land. Add a 1GB connection to a Tier1 provider and you're still well under what it would cost for a wireline provider to even do the paperwork for the same area. After the wireline provider comes into the area, the WISP can serve as a check to keep the prices reasonable, but the RF spectrum just isn't there to serve large amounts of data. WISP coverage shouldn't preclude CAF funding, IMO. Most WISPs would probably say otherwise as it is not in their best financial interest to promote legislation that would fund their competition.
sathackr 11y ago
I didn't say nobody needs gigabit fiber. I said everyone doesn't need gigabit fiber. Obviously at least someone needs gigabit fiber. And 10 gigabit fiber, and 100gigabit fiber. It's what runs the internet. I work in IT, have worked in IT my entire life, and rarely have a need for more than 20mb/s. The only exception being large downloads, which are few and far between.
- scoot 11y ago
  > everyone doesn't need gigabit fiber. Maybe you meant "not everyone needs gigabit fiber? You said nobody needs it. "everyone doesn't" == "nobody does".
  - sathackr 11y ago
    From my unedited original post: > No, it's not gigabit fiber, but in reality, every person in America doesn't need gigabit fiber right now. You quoted it in your first reply as well. 'every person in America' is pretty close to 'everyone doesn't' Though I agree, 'not everyone needs gigabit fiber' would have provided more clarity to my intended meaning.

by scoot 11y ago

jauer 11y ago

I don't think he's saying no one needs gigabit fiber period, rather not everyone needs gig right now, which is demonstrably true. Even 4k is doable without gig using HEVC (50Mbps is typical ref: Wikipedia) and when uncompressed a gig isn't enough. Gig is cool and all but there are fairly large parts of the US where 10-30Mbps+ download with reasonable latency (not satellite) and no data caps (not cell) would be a gamechanger.

sathackr 11y ago
Yes. Most HD(1080p) video is 8mb/s or lower. I feel like Santa Claus most of the time because people are so thankful to even get 10mb/s. It makes my line of work very rewarding. You would be amazed at how quickly a 10mb/s internet connection will make you everyone's best friend. I get fed nice home cooked dinners, showered with praise, invited over for game night. Some of these people will do almost anything just for fast, reliable internet. One company I worked for about 10 years ago went out of business, many of the customers had my personal cell phone number. I was bombarded with calls for the following 5 years with their old customers begging me to somehow get them internet. I tried my best where I could, but just didn't have the financial means to help them.

phil21 11y ago

You can't even say 1gbps is close to "enough" in the immediate foreseeable future (decade+). The sheer innovation we're leaving on the table is insane to me with this thinking. Can no one imagine any use for massive amounts of data moving around the world other than consuming media? Have you not seen what is possible between moving from 1ge to 40g in the datacenter between servers? It's not logical to extend this thinking to the client eventually? I really don't understand it. I remember being a 14 year old kid on a 9600 baud modem, upgrading to 28k and realizing what just became theoretically possible and then watching it happen before my eyes at a breathtaking pace. I doubt today's 14 year olds are any less imaginative. I guarantee if you had 10ge available to every home in the US for $50/mo you would see start to see some cool stuff no one immediately thinks of. The fact you can't get $100/mo gige in major dense metro areas (in the US - Think Chicago, NYC, etc.) by now boggles my mind. What a huge competitive lead we gave up for no reason. How have we bogged down in so much bureaucracy and overhead that we can't make this profitable?

sathackr 11y ago
I agree. If you build it, they will come. And who knows what or who 'they' are. But while Google is spending millions putting fiber to every door in a few select cities, huge portions of the country still only have dial-up and satellite as options. That doesn't mean Google shouldn't be spending millions to do it. That would be the same argument as 'why are we spending billions to go to space when people are starving' -- I read an article once that I can't find now, it was titled something like 'why we should do awesome things'. Of course, we should feed the starving AND go to space AND do other awesome things. My main issue was, the article and company seemed to imply that the local WISP was impeding their ability to get funding to run fiber, when, for the last 10 years, that WISP was probably that community's only source of broadband. It did not say if they actively fought them, or it was simply their presence that was the issue.
- jauer 11y ago
  A WISP (or any other provider) that provides 25Mbps download+some nominal upload to a area (and reports that on their bi-annual FCC form 477) would cause the area to be marked as "served" and thus ineligible for CAF funding. IIRC the USDA BTOP program which funded a lot of middle mile projects had similar restriction. From what I've seen this mostly spoils the traditional telcos (e.g. Centurylink & Frontier) because CAF (replacement for USF) won't pay for their upgrades (usually something like adding a VDSL2 DSLAM in a cabinet somewhere and running fiber back to their CO) when a high-performing WISP is in the area. Of course some little telcos that do FTTH are also affected.
  - sathackr 11y ago
    Interesting. Many WISPs like to exaggerate their coverage area to look bigger than they are (I don't get why it seems to be the goal of every small company to appear larger than they are...but that's another topic). I wonder how much damage this is doing by preventing CAF funding for areas a WISP claims but can't actually provide service to? IMO a WISP will always be a temporary solution. They serve as a good filler until it is financially feasible for a wireline(this includes fiber) provider to service the area. A WISP can put $15,000 in equipment on a tower they pay $750/month for and cover 300 square miles of land. Add a 1GB connection to a Tier1 provider and you're still well under what it would cost for a wireline provider to even do the paperwork for the same area. After the wireline provider comes into the area, the WISP can serve as a check to keep the prices reasonable, but the RF spectrum just isn't there to serve large amounts of data. WISP coverage shouldn't preclude CAF funding, IMO. Most WISPs would probably say otherwise as it is not in their best financial interest to promote legislation that would fund their competition.

sathackr 11y ago

I didn't say nobody needs gigabit fiber. I said everyone doesn't need gigabit fiber. Obviously at least someone needs gigabit fiber. And 10 gigabit fiber, and 100gigabit fiber. It's what runs the internet. I work in IT, have worked in IT my entire life, and rarely have a need for more than 20mb/s. The only exception being large downloads, which are few and far between.

scoot 11y ago
> everyone doesn't need gigabit fiber. Maybe you meant "not everyone needs gigabit fiber? You said nobody needs it. "everyone doesn't" == "nobody does".
- sathackr 11y ago
  From my unedited original post: > No, it's not gigabit fiber, but in reality, every person in America doesn't need gigabit fiber right now. You quoted it in your first reply as well. 'every person in America' is pretty close to 'everyone doesn't' Though I agree, 'not everyone needs gigabit fiber' would have provided more clarity to my intended meaning.