5 ms·

yes 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

by gz5 9y ago

yes 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 ago
Well 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 ago
Well, 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 ago
For 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 ago
  In 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 ago
    Mesh 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 ago
      Hmmm 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 ago
        Yes, 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 ago
    For 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 ago
      Define way better. Wireless solutions have many benefits, but they are in no way better in all aspects than fiber. Fiber has its place, as has wireless.
- amazon_not 9y ago
  There's no way there's going to be subloop unbundling after the Supreme Court killer local loop unbundling.
  - gnopgnip 9y ago
    It could happen just for DSL. The big ISP don't really want to service rural areas anyways.
    - amazon_not 9y ago
      Could happen how? The big ISPs don't want to do it voluntarily and the Supreme Court says they don't have to. Just because the ISPs don't want to serve rural areas doesn't mean they want anybody else to either.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        As an illustration of a related inclination, the FCC, pushed by the big telcos—who also tend to be big ISPs—under Ajit Pai killed the use of resellers (non-facilities-based providers) in the Lifeline program, despite the fact that 70% of Lifeline customers used them, often because the facilities-based providers aren't offering them service directly. This got overlooked by a lot of people, because what attention was on the FCC was all about net neutrality.

by gz5 9y ago

walshemj 9y ago

Well 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 ago

Well, 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 ago

For 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 ago
In 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 ago
  Mesh 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 ago
    Hmmm 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 ago
      Yes, 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 ago
  For 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 ago
    Define way better. Wireless solutions have many benefits, but they are in no way better in all aspects than fiber. Fiber has its place, as has wireless.
amazon_not 9y ago
There's no way there's going to be subloop unbundling after the Supreme Court killer local loop unbundling.
- gnopgnip 9y ago
  It could happen just for DSL. The big ISP don't really want to service rural areas anyways.
  - amazon_not 9y ago
    Could happen how? The big ISPs don't want to do it voluntarily and the Supreme Court says they don't have to. Just because the ISPs don't want to serve rural areas doesn't mean they want anybody else to either.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      As an illustration of a related inclination, the FCC, pushed by the big telcos—who also tend to be big ISPs—under Ajit Pai killed the use of resellers (non-facilities-based providers) in the Lifeline program, despite the fact that 70% of Lifeline customers used them, often because the facilities-based providers aren't offering them service directly. This got overlooked by a lot of people, because what attention was on the FCC was all about net neutrality.