3 ms·

> Frontier is bringing its new 7-gig fiber internet option to customers across the country. The 7-gig plan costs $309.99 / month and is the fastest widely avail

> Frontier is bringing its new 7-gig fiber internet option to customers across the country. The 7-gig plan costs $309.99 / month and is the fastest widely available fiber plan so far. I'm not against 'progress' generally per se, but I think that you're reaching diminishing returns >1 Gbps, and that's quite the price tag, especially compared to: > Google Fiber has a $150 / month 8Gbps plan, but it’s only available in select cities, such as San Antonio, Texas; Salt Lake City, Utah; and Mesa, Arizona. From a strictly societal utilitarian perspective, I would think that going for more ubiquitous fibre coverage would be better. Back in the last century/millennium, there was a mass push to having electricity and telephone connections everywhere, and I'd like to see the same thing done with fibre Internet—ideally owned by local government, with Layer 3 being provided by companies: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-access_network https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-access_network

zamadatix 2y ago
The cost to deploy 1G-PON and 10G-PON are very close to the point if you're talking about deploying fiber it doesn't really change the viability.
- throw0101d 2y ago
  They're already at 50 Gbps: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_Speed_PON https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_Speed_PON (G.9804) * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethernet_in_the_first_mile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethernet_in_the_first_mile The main point is to deploy fibre everywhere, and not necessarily which service speed is offered. (A separate question is whether to go with PON or with 'active' networking.)
  - zamadatix 2y ago
    Those higher speed PON can actually be a lot more expensive to deploy right now, though they eventually come down with time of course. Deploying active direct fiber everywhere would be quite the undertaking in terms of funding. I agree though the goal should be to deploy fiber everywhere. I was just responding whether or not it's utilitarian to roll out the higher speeds like 7G while waiting for that - it is at it costs next to $0 on the infrastructure side for the areas already having the fiber independent of resources we dump into rolling out more fiber.

zamadatix 2y ago

The cost to deploy 1G-PON and 10G-PON are very close to the point if you're talking about deploying fiber it doesn't really change the viability.

throw0101d 2y ago
They're already at 50 Gbps: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_Speed_PON https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_Speed_PON (G.9804) * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethernet_in_the_first_mile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethernet_in_the_first_mile The main point is to deploy fibre everywhere, and not necessarily which service speed is offered. (A separate question is whether to go with PON or with 'active' networking.)
- zamadatix 2y ago
  Those higher speed PON can actually be a lot more expensive to deploy right now, though they eventually come down with time of course. Deploying active direct fiber everywhere would be quite the undertaking in terms of funding. I agree though the goal should be to deploy fiber everywhere. I was just responding whether or not it's utilitarian to roll out the higher speeds like 7G while waiting for that - it is at it costs next to $0 on the infrastructure side for the areas already having the fiber independent of resources we dump into rolling out more fiber.