amazon_not

11 ms·

61.
by amazon_not 9y ago
Single mode fiber isn't immune to dispersion or other impairments, it just does better than multimode.
62.
by amazon_not 9y ago
> In addition to the refraction index, you’d expect fibre optics to have another limiting factor: scatter. Fiber optics have lots of limiting factors: power limits, chromatic and polarization mode dispersion, spectral attenuation, manufa
63.
by amazon_not 9y ago
Longhaul subsea fiber optic cables have a conductor in them that carries a high voltage DC current that powers the amplifiers on the cable route.
64.
by amazon_not 9y ago
> Undersea fiber cables have repeaters embedded in them. So even though it's only one hop from an L2 perspective, the light is being decoded, error corrected, and re-transmitted many times along the way to hong kong from SF. No, thi
65.
by amazon_not 9y ago
Only it doesn't always work out like that. In Chattanooga the local provider displaced Comcast as the largest ISP and they are making good money. Also competition is bad. People might get ideas...
66.
by amazon_not 9y ago
You have basically two choices: either you get permission to put up your own poles / get permission to hang your cable on somebody else's poles or you get access to the public right of way / get permission from the landowners
67.
by amazon_not 9y ago
Good job. Unfortunately efforts like these are contingent on being in a location where you have reasonable access to wholesale bandwidth and enough population density to defray the costs of buying bandwidth and building the network.
68.
by amazon_not 10y ago
For those doubting my calculation, here are the correct numbers: https://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/rpt/2012-R-0515.htm At 4% interest, 83 000 subscribers and attributing none of the costs of the fiber network to the sma
69.
by amazon_not 10y ago
To put the issue to rest with some finality, here are the costs of the EPB fiber network, as per the report from the Office of Legislative Reasearch for the Conneticut General Assembly: "EPB issued $229 million in revenue bonds in 2008
70.
by amazon_not 10y ago
> Yes, but that's the fiber backbone underlying the residential internet service. True, but that still does not mean you can attribute 100% of the federal smart meter grant to the fiber buildout. Even if you chose to ignore all the
71.
by amazon_not 10y ago
> That's great, but time value of money being what it is, you'd rather pay for something later than paying for it now. That assumption only holds if the cost of the inputs do not rise with time. In fiber builds up to 80% of the
72.
by amazon_not 10y ago
Just because something is widely reported does not mean it's true. You can just as easily find reports which details the cost of the network at $220M, which is how much the city bonded for to build it. Furthermore the sources you cite
73.
by amazon_not 10y ago
... and less than 10 years once you use the correct numbers. And that's assuming operating costs are 60% before debt service, which is highish.
74.
by amazon_not 10y ago
> Point to point wireless is a lot cheaper than burying fiber, and also a lot cheaper than maintaining aerial fiber that can be torn down by storms/tree branches. Wireless is not always cheaper than fiber. The cost depends on geogra
75.
by amazon_not 10y ago
> The network cost $330 million,[1] and has 71,000 subscribers.[2] Both figures are inaccurate. The $330M includes $111.5M in federal grants which was used for EPB's smart grid. Thus only $220M can be attributed to the fiber network
76.
by amazon_not 10y ago
> [2] And if the government does build it, we should ditch the emotional appeals for FTTH and rely heavily on sensible, cost-effect point-to-point wireless. How about we ditch the emotional appeals to deploy whatever technology is the fl
77.
by amazon_not 10y ago
> The economics, politics, and logistics are brutal. No on the economics, yes on the politics and again no on the logistics. > Say you build out to the whole city of Baltimore, and get 40% to subscribe at a cost of $5,0000 per subscri
78.
by amazon_not 10y ago
Australia tried that. Total disaster.
79.
by amazon_not 10y ago
> The message I originally replied to said "End customers don't buy the dumb pipe directly." But they do, and that's what they want to keep on doing. An Internet connection is by definition a dumb pipe. It's only
80.
by amazon_not 10y ago
> Of course; they buy it from ISPs, and now you have the same problem again. What problem? > It doesn't matter how much your fiber can transfer if the arrangements at the meet-me room can't get you that much content for a pr
81.
by amazon_not 10y ago
> I think we have a serious problem of definitions (which goes back to what I said about this being not trivial to define): we're both saying the phrase "dumb pipe" and apparently meaning quite different things by it. Real
82.
by amazon_not 10y ago
> Because many customers don't actually want a dumb pipe. Yes, they do. That's exactly what they want. A dumb pipe that transports their bits and nothing more. I'm omitting your list about dumb pipes, as nothing you write
83.
by amazon_not 10y ago
> So, anyone who can successfully define what they're doing as "not prioritizing" can entirely sidestep any regulation you have in mind. This argument makes no sense. Colocating a CDN node has nothing to do with prioritiza
84.
by amazon_not 10y ago
Tor does not help against net neutrality violations. Tor only helps if you want some anonymity for your traffic.
85.
by amazon_not 10y ago
Pretty much. Everybody else pays for their bandwidth. Only Comcast has the market power to demand payment for access to their customers.
86.
by amazon_not 10y ago
> "this is complicated and needs to be handled with care, not with a trivial attempted fix like 'dumb pipes only' the way people often seem to think" Why do you think turning ISPs into dumb pipes only would not fix mo
87.
by amazon_not 10y ago
> If you phrase it as just "don't prioritize traffic", you've just broken most CDNs, as well as QoS that optimizes for latency/bandwidth to improve VoIP and similar. This is simply incorrect. CDNs are not priorit
88.
by amazon_not 10y ago
You are not entitled to a return on investment. When you make an investment, you expose yourself to risks, including regulatory risks. Nothing immoral about it and certainly no theft. In case you think we are talking hypotheticals here, wha
89.
by amazon_not 10y ago
It's not immoral, just counterproductive. Rent controls never make things better, just worse.
90.
by amazon_not 10y ago
Do you know how to make the web not suck on a slow connection? Ssh into a shell account and use a text based browser :)

More ›