6 ms·
The only way to get the last mile competition we need in the US, and make net neutrality irrelevant, is for org-run fiber builds in which the org doesn't offer
by gz5 9y ago
The only way to get the last mile competition we need in the US, and make net neutrality irrelevant, is for org-run fiber builds in which the org doesn't offer services. The org operates a multi-tenant fiber infrastructure in which you and I can pick (n) "service providers"...part of what I am hoping is a 2018 full of decentralization and distribution:
https://goo.gl/DkpmU5 https://goo.gl/DkpmU5
- walshemj 9y agoOr just unbundle the local loop as we do in the UK
- gz5 9y agoyes although can be harder to retrofit, e.g. i don't believe many of the US fiber architectures were built to be multi-tenant with (n) service providers behind 1 operator. especially because the duopoly's control most of them. enter the muni-fiber and similar projects...but built to a different commercial model...
- walshemj 9y agoWell tough luck mate (you want to play in the big boys game ante up sub) Any how you can use ADSL variants or upgrade to FTC and use VDSL for the last drop.
- notmetoday3426 9y agoWell, ours wasn't either, but now it is. Note, the difficult bits aren't unbundled. We have market 1, market 2 .. The nice places mostly have cable too (which is not unbundled). Also OFCOM hasn't got a clue. Sorry venting... I keep meeting people who have build national broadband networks (from their opinions) at dinner parties and it's really got to me.
- gnopgnip 9y agoFor the urban, and dense suburban areas fiber is a great option and has much higher potential. But there will always be a large portion of the US that is not profitable to run fiber, and already has phone service. We already have multitenant access in the US for all phone service. Just extending the current regulation to cover DSL is all that is needed to allow for competition and improved internet speed. You can get up to 76mbps with VDSL2 over copper wire, just modern modems and provider side equipment. And there is newer technology that provides even better speeds over the same copper wire.
- mnzaki 9y agoIn the less dense areas the most economical solution for great connectivity is definitely mesh networks. They are even being deployed in very rural areas at a very low cost! http://owni.fr/files/2011/09/Building_a_Rural_Wireless_Mesh_Network_-_A_DIY_Guide_v0.7_65.pdf http://owni.fr/files/2011/09/Building_a_Rural_Wireless_Mesh_... Obviously there are better (commercial, prepackaged) mesh network solutions
- amazon_not 9y agoMesh networking hasn't really worked out. WISPs, i.e. Wireless Internet Service Providers, do a great job at serving rural (and other) areas.
- mnzaki 9y agoHmmm I think it's a bit of a stretch to say mesh networking hasn't really worked out. It just hasn't spread far enough yet. Have you heard of CJDNS[1]? or BATMAN[2]? Hyperboria[3] is multiple sizeable deployments of CJDNS. Maybe you heard of Freifunk[4] in Germany, with over 40k access points so far. [1] https://github.com/cjdelisle/cjdns https://github.com/cjdelisle/cjdns [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B.A.T.M.A.N https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B.A.T.M.A.N. [3] http://hyperboria.net/ http://hyperboria.net/ [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freifunk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freifunk
- amazon_not 9y agoYes, I've heard of them and others, but I think dboreham already put the matter conclusively at rest: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16138402 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16138402
- jeffwilcox 9y agoFor buildings (offices, condos, apartments), air fiber solutions are way better and often faster than fiber pulls. 60 GHz microwave, building-to-building if needed, all are in the big cities... why waste time fighting rights to run fiber in dense urban cores?
- amazon_not 9y agoAlready had that in the US until the Supreme Court decided we shouldn't have that in the Brand X case. It's very, very unlikely to come back.
- jessaustin 9y agoYeah there aren't enough suckers willing to invest in firms to "compete" with the monopolists to fall for that regulatory bait-and-switch again.
- rhino369 9y agoThe FCC did a terrible job at rate setting and ended up killing DSL technology in America. That's why cable companies are typically the biggest ISP in any given location instead of the telecoms.
- king07828 9y agoAnother pie-in-the-sky option: pick a UHF television channel and de-license that portion of the spectrum. The IEEE would develop a standard (like what was done for Wi-Fi) that lets anyone be a local broadcaster or service provider
- amazon_not 9y agoWe already have this. It's called white space technology and has so far amounted to pretty much nothing. The technology is immature and expensive plus it provides very little bandwidth.
- jessaustin 9y agoWhat segments of the spectrum allow this technology for public use? How do those compare to what ATT/VZN own?
- amazon_not 9y agohttps://www.fcc.gov/general/white-space https://www.fcc.gov/general/white-space
- king07828 9y agoCool, thanks for the heads up. After wiki-ing around, it looks like current whitespace technology is hobbled by forcing the broadcast device to get permission from an FCC database in order to transmit. With that constraint, I am not surprised it hasn't taken off.
- gnopgnip 9y agoOpen access networks are the way to go. It keeps all the incentives in the right place to allow for capital investments to improve the network, prevent overbuilding, and encourage competition.
- otakucode 9y agoThat leaves nothing for those "service providers" to do except skim profit. Why should they get a cut? Because they have a router?
- otakucode 9y agoMy question is an honest one. A modern ISP needs to only run a router, really. They don't need to provide email accounts. They don't need to provide a Usenet server. They don't need to provide free web hosting space. They don't need to provide hardly any of the things ISPs once did. They don't even need to provide DNS servers. They need to provide DHCP and a route to the Internet. That's it. Where is competition going to occur? Wherever an open network that honestly permits competition exists, one would hope to expect the establishment of such a barebones ISP offering simple access at speed only limited by the customers equipment, with no throttling or restriction (since we're splitting that fiber amongst a potentially infinite number of ISP companies, this will work out great), for maybe 1% over the price they have to pay to the muni for access to the network. And then who competes with them and how?
- KozmoNau7 9y agoThe trend has been going more towards OTT services, because there's more profit to be made.
- amazon_not 9y agoI'm going to take a wild guess and say you have never run an ISP. The answer is people. You need people to "provide a route to the Internet". To answer phones. To fix things when they break. Running an ISP is far from glamorous and far from just leaning back and skimming the profit.