4 ms·

Once in a while a story about another city getting fiber, while it's fantastic (without knowing much about the cost), progress is slow and even in the heart of

Once in a while a story about another city getting fiber, while it's fantastic (without knowing much about the cost), progress is slow and even in the heart of the Bay Area, we are pathetically lagging. https://fiber.google.com/newcities/ https://fiber.google.com/newcities/ is looking sparse and honestly worrisome. It's amazing how much the US is behind implementing another solution they invented.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> It's amazing how much the US is behind implementing another solution they invented America is vast. My opinion is local FTTH networks will eventually be interconnected wirelessly, either point-to-point or by bouncing off LEO satellites. Sometimes, letting infrastructure roll out organically is the sounder solution.
- thelastidiot 8y ago
  I understand vast. I am not expecting Montana to get full coverage by the end of the decade. But San Jose, California? Hello?
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > But San Jose, California? Hello? It routinely blows me away that my Manhattan internet is faster and cheaper than that at my parents' in Cupertino. I suspect common local political dysfunction underwrites the differences in housing supply, public transportation and internet quality.
    - berbec 8y ago
      Only in the right parts of Manhattan. I live on 78th street between 1st & York (0th) avenues. I am in a one square block fiber dead zone. :(
    - dpark 8y ago
      Manhattan is far denser than Cupertino. It’s easier to justify the investment there. But yeah, I was surprised to learn that my options in Mountain View were shitty, expensive cable or shitty, slightly less expensive DSL.
- dpark 8y ago
  Why bother interconnecting wirelessly? Long haul fiber is not generally the expense part. Most places already have fiber interconnects for whatever service is available. Only the true boonies with no “fast” service don’t have fiber interconnects, and they probably aren’t dense enough for a local fiber network to make sense either.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  The "America USA too big for fast internet," argument would hold a lot more water if our densely populated cities were shining bastions of broadband. As it happens, our cities have some of the shittiest internet available.
rb808 8y ago
That's bad, but also interesting that you can have the world's main tech region without much fiber to home. Maybe fiber isn't really that important.
- volkk 8y ago
  > Maybe fiber isn't really that important. My gut feeling is that it is, but the current monopolies providing alternatives just haven't ruined the experience enough for this to be pursued heavily by people with deep pockets
  - adventured 8y ago
    What did Japan do with their vast broadband lead (which has now eroded entirely)? How did that dramatically benefit their economy? It didn't revolutionize their tech output, it didn't jump start their moribund economy. Finland has been among the ten fastest nations in regards to broadband speeds for a long time. That didn't do much for their economy as it languished in a near ten year recession. It didn't spur an epic tech buildout, it didn't help them keep pace with what Sweden has accomplished for example, with the two nations having similar broadband speeds. France has lagged extremely far behind in broadband, for two decades. They're among the worst in Europe at it. Does that mean their economy is doomed? They're well below Hungary, Bulgaria, Poland, and Russia in Europe regarding broadband. And yet there's Bulgaria, with a GDP per capita 1/6th that of France, and an economy that hasn't net expanded in ten years (off that much smaller per capita economic base, with far better broadband, you'd expect to see dramatic growth results, and yet there are none). I think some healthy skepticism is warranted on the top end value proposition. Perhaps if you're down toward the bottom as in the case of France (in Europe), you do indeed suffer a meaningful penalty. Much of Latin America for example has very slow average Internet access speeds, I think that sort of outcome does harm their development potential. While common access to something like 50-100mbps cable may accomplish everything that 1gbps fiber does at this juncture for consumers and general economic development. Maybe that will change soon, such that FTTH becomes invaluable to get ahead economically, there's practically no evidence that it matters currently or has mattered much the last ten years. I like the idea of muni fiber programs, more competition, and universal access to 1gbps to the home; and yet I've never seen any evidence that the high cost of rapidly building that out is justified (vs gradually over time).
java-man 8y ago
and in some areas of Palo Alto (ghm!) we can't event get fiber. across the street, yes. talk about the power of monopoly...
gascan 8y ago
Fits right in with the bigger NIMBY picture. Also, from visiting the Bay Area, it's my opinion there's an overarching complete lack of investment in public infrastructure. It's not due to lack of money in the area; witness the countless exotic cars, bouncing down what I consider some of the worst pavement anywhere.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> It's amazing how much the US is behind implementing another solution they invented America is vast. My opinion is local FTTH networks will eventually be interconnected wirelessly, either point-to-point or by bouncing off LEO satellites. Sometimes, letting infrastructure roll out organically is the sounder solution.

thelastidiot 8y ago
I understand vast. I am not expecting Montana to get full coverage by the end of the decade. But San Jose, California? Hello?
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > But San Jose, California? Hello? It routinely blows me away that my Manhattan internet is faster and cheaper than that at my parents' in Cupertino. I suspect common local political dysfunction underwrites the differences in housing supply, public transportation and internet quality.
  - berbec 8y ago
    Only in the right parts of Manhattan. I live on 78th street between 1st & York (0th) avenues. I am in a one square block fiber dead zone. :(
  - dpark 8y ago
    Manhattan is far denser than Cupertino. It’s easier to justify the investment there. But yeah, I was surprised to learn that my options in Mountain View were shitty, expensive cable or shitty, slightly less expensive DSL.
dpark 8y ago
Why bother interconnecting wirelessly? Long haul fiber is not generally the expense part. Most places already have fiber interconnects for whatever service is available. Only the true boonies with no “fast” service don’t have fiber interconnects, and they probably aren’t dense enough for a local fiber network to make sense either.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
The "America USA too big for fast internet," argument would hold a lot more water if our densely populated cities were shining bastions of broadband. As it happens, our cities have some of the shittiest internet available.

rb808 8y ago

That's bad, but also interesting that you can have the world's main tech region without much fiber to home. Maybe fiber isn't really that important.

volkk 8y ago
> Maybe fiber isn't really that important. My gut feeling is that it is, but the current monopolies providing alternatives just haven't ruined the experience enough for this to be pursued heavily by people with deep pockets
- adventured 8y ago
  What did Japan do with their vast broadband lead (which has now eroded entirely)? How did that dramatically benefit their economy? It didn't revolutionize their tech output, it didn't jump start their moribund economy. Finland has been among the ten fastest nations in regards to broadband speeds for a long time. That didn't do much for their economy as it languished in a near ten year recession. It didn't spur an epic tech buildout, it didn't help them keep pace with what Sweden has accomplished for example, with the two nations having similar broadband speeds. France has lagged extremely far behind in broadband, for two decades. They're among the worst in Europe at it. Does that mean their economy is doomed? They're well below Hungary, Bulgaria, Poland, and Russia in Europe regarding broadband. And yet there's Bulgaria, with a GDP per capita 1/6th that of France, and an economy that hasn't net expanded in ten years (off that much smaller per capita economic base, with far better broadband, you'd expect to see dramatic growth results, and yet there are none). I think some healthy skepticism is warranted on the top end value proposition. Perhaps if you're down toward the bottom as in the case of France (in Europe), you do indeed suffer a meaningful penalty. Much of Latin America for example has very slow average Internet access speeds, I think that sort of outcome does harm their development potential. While common access to something like 50-100mbps cable may accomplish everything that 1gbps fiber does at this juncture for consumers and general economic development. Maybe that will change soon, such that FTTH becomes invaluable to get ahead economically, there's practically no evidence that it matters currently or has mattered much the last ten years. I like the idea of muni fiber programs, more competition, and universal access to 1gbps to the home; and yet I've never seen any evidence that the high cost of rapidly building that out is justified (vs gradually over time).

java-man 8y ago

and in some areas of Palo Alto (ghm!) we can't event get fiber. across the street, yes. talk about the power of monopoly...

gascan 8y ago

Fits right in with the bigger NIMBY picture. Also, from visiting the Bay Area, it's my opinion there's an overarching complete lack of investment in public infrastructure. It's not due to lack of money in the area; witness the countless exotic cars, bouncing down what I consider some of the worst pavement anywhere.