4 ms·

> It seems VDSL2 can achieve maximum throughput at run lengths under 1000ft from the DSLAM, and maximum performance degrades after that over distance. That soun

> It seems VDSL2 can achieve maximum throughput at run lengths under 1000ft from the DSLAM, and maximum performance degrades after that over distance. That sounds sufficient for most of the people complaining of slow access right now in the US I would guess that this isn't right, but honestly I don't have the data either. My rough guess would be that only around 5-15% of people have <1000' of copper to their DSLAM, and I from what I've experienced with other technologies the speeds degrade very quickly after the max length, and only even work up to the max length in absolutely ideal scenarios. What I've seen of current copper infrastructure in the U.S. is pretty bad - lots of hand twisted copper lines with the ends exposed and rusting out, for example - that kind of thing would add the equivalent of at least several hundred feet of additional cable, and is very difficult to fix en-masse. Honestly my gut feeling is that you pretty much have to run new cables to something like 80% of the U.S. to get good Internet service everywhere, and obviously if you're running new cables you should just run fiber. Looking at the cost of that compared to launching satellites - and accounting for the additional benefits of the satellites, like connectivity in extremely remote places and on the ocean - I'm not sure the satellites don't come out ahead. EDIT TO ADD: A comparison point on the 1000 feet number is that this is in the same ballpark as how close a 5G tower needs to be to get real 5G service to your home or your cell phone. Current 4G towers are nowhere near that dense, and it's going to take huge amounts of money to get them that dense, even in the most densely populated areas.

Alupis 6y ago
Part of the reason this type of network isn't already built, is likely most folks living in very remote places simply don't need or want 1Gbps internet (or even DSL) - or at least don't know they want it. There are folks with dial-up connections still, unfortunately, and not always because they have no other option. The more technically-inclined people here on HN wanting to work remotely and stream multiple 4k videos at once - they aren't majority of, say, AT&T's customer base. AT&T won't build this out if they think 1 in 100 potential customers will actually upgrade. This will change over time, as a generation of folks that grew up with technology age and move into more rural areas. Hopefully demand will drive these network upgrades over time, and make it make financial sense to run new fiber in rural areas. This could even be expedited with some sort of National Infrastructure Bill to fund it today, subsidized by tax payers since the benefits are ultimately so great. I still think that's ultimately the better (and long term, cheaper) option verse thousands of satellites being launched every few years.
- grahamburger 6y ago
  I don't think you're wrong here, but I would phrase it a little bit differently. I've worked in a lot of pretty rural areas, and from what I've seen in the last 10 years or so even folks in very rural areas want a lot of the same things from their service as techies do. Also, even places like the Bay Area with huge amounts of exactly the HN demographic the residential Internet infrastructure isn't exactly great and isn't improving very rapidly. My take on the situation is that what most people want is more Internet for the same or less money. That means the only way to get infrastructure improvements is with competition. If AT&T did a bunch of upgrades and then gave their customers better service for the same price their customers would take it, but the customers aren't going to pay more than they're paying now and they're only going to leave if there's something better.

Alupis 6y ago

Part of the reason this type of network isn't already built, is likely most folks living in very remote places simply don't need or want 1Gbps internet (or even DSL) - or at least don't know they want it. There are folks with dial-up connections still, unfortunately, and not always because they have no other option. The more technically-inclined people here on HN wanting to work remotely and stream multiple 4k videos at once - they aren't majority of, say, AT&T's customer base. AT&T won't build this out if they think 1 in 100 potential customers will actually upgrade. This will change over time, as a generation of folks that grew up with technology age and move into more rural areas. Hopefully demand will drive these network upgrades over time, and make it make financial sense to run new fiber in rural areas. This could even be expedited with some sort of National Infrastructure Bill to fund it today, subsidized by tax payers since the benefits are ultimately so great. I still think that's ultimately the better (and long term, cheaper) option verse thousands of satellites being launched every few years.

grahamburger 6y ago
I don't think you're wrong here, but I would phrase it a little bit differently. I've worked in a lot of pretty rural areas, and from what I've seen in the last 10 years or so even folks in very rural areas want a lot of the same things from their service as techies do. Also, even places like the Bay Area with huge amounts of exactly the HN demographic the residential Internet infrastructure isn't exactly great and isn't improving very rapidly. My take on the situation is that what most people want is more Internet for the same or less money. That means the only way to get infrastructure improvements is with competition. If AT&T did a bunch of upgrades and then gave their customers better service for the same price their customers would take it, but the customers aren't going to pay more than they're paying now and they're only going to leave if there's something better.