Utah Cities To Provide High-Speed Net Access 486
Instarx writes "The New York Times reports that Salt Lake City and other Utah cities plan to install an ultrahigh-speed optical network as a public utility project starting next year. The network would provide internet access [for about $28 per month] in direct competition to slower commercial offerings. The network would be capable of delivering data over the Internet to homes and businesses at speeds 100 times faster than current commercial residential offerings. It would also offer digital television and telephone services through the Internet."
Registration-Free Link (Score:5, Informative)
fat pipe, please (Score:5, Insightful)
When you look at the vendors, their pricing has just dropped because they are hungry. So, you can get incredible pricing for the equipment, the electronics, the fiber, all the things you need. Because the economy's down, interest rates are down, so that's going to help financing.
And because they don't just have a free flow of cash in the telecom world, there are companies that are very interested because they don't have the capital riding on somebody else's network. You take that all together and the timing actually is pretty darn good.
As far as municipal involvement in this, the genie is out of the bottle in my opinion. Municipalities across the country are either going to do the retail or the wholesale, but they're going to do something. And they're not satisfied to just sit and wait when an incumbent or some private sector company decides that they're big enough and it's worth their while to come in to build the networks.
Re:fat pipe, please (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:fat pipe, please (Score:3, Informative)
Re:fat pipe, please (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you consider it a luxury to have electricity and running water? My grandparents considered it so up until the mid-twentieth century, and if yours did not, you don't have to go back more than a generation to find ancestors who did.
Re:fat pipe, please (Score:2)
Also, when was the gov't supposed to compete with private businesses? How would you like it if the government set up a business to compete against you?
Another money saver on this and other projects: Grey market equipment is at an all-time low. I've found Cisco DSLAMs completely carded for $1500. Optical equipment also flooded the market.
The thing that gets me is this: If ther
Re:fat pipe, please (Score:3, Insightful)
well they should do the same for television and internet and etc. these companies have been jerking us around with shitty service and slow speeds in their profit margin interest. (and I work for one of them)
bring it on. I'll pay an extra 500 bucks a year ($150 more than what the
Re:fat pipe, please (Score:2)
Phones, electricity and water are considered necessities of life. To a later extent public educations and transportation is too. These are what the municipal government should take care of.
Would you call fiber-optics part of what every home owner would say is needed?
Re:fat pipe, please (Score:5, Insightful)
compare the number of e-mails, web site visits, IM's you do a day compared to the number of phone calls.
Re:fat pipe, please (Score:5, Interesting)
The demand is obviously being constricted by the dearth of cheap pipes. If we wait for the "demand" to grow enough to justify private investment in FO to the home, it will never happen. The present setup is just dandy for whomever is selling pathetic connectivity. They will not roll out replacements for their current cash cows.
Think of it this way. Pretend that, instead of bandwidth, the "scarcity" is water. An imperfect analogy, 'cause water is finite and bandwidth is infinite... though the difference actually helps the argument.
Anyway. Pretend that we all lived in a area with no water lines, 20 years ago. People got their water from wells, and toted the water to their homes on their shoulders. Not a scarcity situation, for people got all the water they could drink.
Now pretend that someone invented a water pipe that piggybacked on existing equipment, and that water was found to be a resource that could simply be manufactured and shipped. People discover that they can use water not jusut for drinking, but for cooking.
Then someone discovers that they can build giant sluices that enable the supply to be increased twenty-fold to each customer. But, instead of the government building the infrastructure, a hundred thousand businesses compete to supply the water using products from vendors who try to maximize profit.
Imagine that the orignal well owners insist on covering their original invenstments + maintenance + cash to buy lots of other companies.
A state of balance eventually occurs when the businesses find their sweet spot financially. Instead of gallons of water per minute, people pay a reasonable price for a trickle of water, enough to wash their face and take the occasional shower. They don't NEED all that water, really. And who wants to put all the pipe companies out of business?
An artificial scarcity is maintained, with the vendors of the pipes and the providers of the water maximizing what profits they can.
Now, what if the government simply had built the pipes and the water could go sluicing down the pipes for practically nothing? Suppose the government, as the main supplier, could dictate terms to the piper manufacturers, forcing the equipment prices down?
One could say that the government wasn't necessary to supply water, because the trickle was enough, and the businesses needed to make a decent profit.
But who decided that? The businesses. Who speaks up for the consumer of water? The government, which they own.
The government could have supplied the water from the beginning, at orders of magnitude lower cost.
If you don't think this is possible, I point you to municipal water supplies in the real world. If they had been provided by the free market, we'd be metering water like champagne.
Re:fat pipe, please (Score:5, Insightful)
No, its not obvious.
Its hard to find justification for HDTV and this is at minimum 5 times more bandwidth than that.
> If we wait for the "demand" to grow enough to justify private investment in FO to the home, it will never happen.
And sometimes it shouldn't happen. But how do we know? Should we spend a huge amount everytime something comes up that perhaps might work out in the future?
>The present setup is just dandy for whomever is selling pathetic connectivity. They will not roll out replacements for their current cash cows.
Wrong, they did. Before the only thing available was dial-up. Then cable/telephone companies built the infrastructure for broadband.
>Think of it this way. Pretend that, instead of bandwidth, the "scarcity" is water. An imperfect analogy, 'cause water is finite and bandwidth is infinite... though the difference actually helps the argument.
Actually the big thing is that water is needed for the basics of life. Broadband isn't. You shut off water to a city, it become a emergency. With broadband, it might get reported in the local newspaper.
A better analogy is resturants. I don't need to go out and eat but its very nice when I do. Do you think its the function of the city to build and operate the biggest resturant in the state when there are multiple resturants already? Do you think that is wise use of money when they have to do road repairs?
>If they had been provided by the free market, we'd be metering water like champagne
Like electricity, gasoline, phone lines and garbage collection? They do cost, but not at huge insane prices.
Re:fat pipe, please (Score:3, Insightful)
There is *no* reason a public utility cannot provide better, cheaper, faster service.
Horray! Finally, not everyone is so damned convinced of this ultra-capitalist myth that Public Companies are absolutely incapable of 'competing' w/ public.
I personally like the idea of transparent, non-profit co-ops being regulated into the marketplace. Not just government utilities, but co-ops that have open/auditable books... *that* defends you from big-fat cat plutocrats robbing the masses.
Co-ops and
Re:fat pipe, please (Score:5, Insightful)
To provide a public good that is in the best long term interests of the community. Businesses likely wouldn't undertake such an endeavor because once the competition comes in, it wouldn't make the investment worthwhile. What the government is doing here is to provide infrastructure for many companies to come in and offer services, which will not only stimulate economic activity but also help develop the area's human capital...
Re:fat pipe, please (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. This is just how things should work with respect to such things.
Internet access is a business that inherently forms monopolies because of the very nature of it---one can only run wires down everyone's streets a few times before the poles get crowded and ugly, and other problems start to arise. The government or some regulated non-profit should run and control the pipes, giving private companies access on a wholesale basis. You get the best of both worlds: cheap, efficient infrastructure combined with choice in the marketplace, enabling companies to compete on quality of service, features, etc.
This seems to be what they're doing in Utah, and what they should be doing in the rest of the country.
Re:fat pipe, please (Score:2, Insightful)
>like it if the government set up a business to compete against you?
I don't really care about how the businesses which aren't providing a decent service would like it - i'm more concerned with whether or not the millions of taxpayers out there are able to get cheap broadband. If it costs less in tax that in would cost you privately to buy a service, and it's something most people want and can use, such as libraries an
Re:fat pipe, please (Score:3, Insightful)
Government does it all the time. The US Gov't built the interstate highway system, which all but destroyed the railroad business. The Gov't provides tax breaks and financing for Ford to build a new factory in some town. Doesn't GM get peeved that Ford is getting some deal that they arten't getting? Gov't takes these actions for two reasons:
Municipals (Score:4, Insightful)
Many have been, and in spite of the track record and sufficient demonstration of their inability to operate as a professionally run telecom entity, many still aspire to do things more interesting than running their local water plant.
What is important for any consumer (and citizen, in the case of a municipal considering getting into commercial enterprises with your tax dollars) is to understand the dynamic of motivation in any operation.
In Utah, the complaint is being made that too many commercial entities are ignoring the demand for broadband. Being one who provides this to a third of a fly-over country state, I can tell you that the claims of interest in broadband (even at 60% comperable city cable modem prices) is far less than the claims. I've had communities present us with petitions with over 200 signatures, only to discover that less than 20% of that number were actually prepared to pay for the service when it was finally provided. (It wasn't price or competition - but rather a large majority of parties signing it to pad the numbers in the hope they could bring something good to their community - without they themselves actually having to purchase it!)
And we're motivated by the consequence of failure being of significant disinterest (forget about making great profits at this point - broadband in rural America is being operated exceptionally well if you're breaking even) . Contrast that with a municipal. They are used to 8:30 to 4 work hours, not twelve-hour days, expect to sneak out early Friday and never work weekends. They're typically overstaffed with undercompetent people and solve problems by throwing more bodies at the problem, or (god forbid), hiring and believing consultants.
Their motivation? It's typically prestige and recognition. Failure isn't a possibility, as they will quickly transfer moneys from their monopoly operations (water, sewer, etc.) either legally or illegally (watch out for those creative loans from the monopoly that get "forgiven" and wiped off the books a few years later, or the illegal transfer "loaning" of assets, including employees, vehicles, equipment and office space that is billed to the regulated monopoly but actually put to use within the broadband operation).
The result: you end up paying the highest water, sewer, electric, etc. rates in the state. One municipal in our region, who decided to offer broadband (in spite of three - yes, three - other broadband offerings) has an electric and water rate over 40% higher than anything remotely close in the region. That and creative accountants.
Worse yet, the municipals simply do not understand the telecom business. They're used to product life cycles of 5 to 10 years and don't understand capitalizing something that'll be obsolete in 12 months. They don't understand that core business means you need to have expertise on the subject - they'll hire consultants to an extent that ensures their project will never be profitable. This leads to unfortunate purchasing decisions - e.g. buying proprietary equipment from a company that goes bankrupt and leaves the municipality with an investment in junk (this happens more than you'd think - in fact, one of the proprietary near-line of sight vendors in our business that has the most success with municipals is a breath away from chapter 11 or 7, but they nail the municipal process by building their confidence up in the sales process about how easy this broadband stuff is - "heck, this stuff sells itself and is nearly self-installable!").
Now you're really in trouble, as a consumer of the water/gas/electric from the municipal. Consider for a moment - what would you do if you disagreed with paying 50% or more for your utilities to subsidize a pathetic broadband operation? Have you evern looked at how you can get rid of your municipal management? They're very hard to remove - most are unaccountable to the political process and report only to a w
Can we ever have too much Capacity? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Can we ever have too much Capacity? (Score:5, Insightful)
Look how the Internet is growing, it's only a matter of time before multimedia content pushes the limits of even modern broadband setups. They are building capacity for the future, as well as for increased longterm demand.
Look at the rest of the industry, are you hard drives too fast, is your printer too fast, can you ever be too fast (besides playing old games and some emulators)?
Re:Can we ever have too much Capacity? (Score:2)
Rememeber Billy Gates famous quote.
"No one will need more than 637 kb of memory for a personal computer"
Re:Can we ever have too much Capacity? (Score:2)
Re:Can we ever have too much Capacity? (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, telephone companies are already looking into this using vdsl. Hardware such as this TUT Sytems [tutsystems.com] can be used to send out several tv channels, internet, phone and more.
Re:Can we ever have too much Capacity? (Score:2)
That analogy is not a good one to use because roads and bandwidth don't compare well. Network bandwidth can be used for more than one purpose while the roads are pretty much pigeon-holed.
There are lots of applications that "could be" if only the bandwidth was there to support them.
Re:Can we ever have too much Capacity? (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, I think it is a pretty good analogy. A larger road has more bandwidth, and so can support more uses than a smaller road. For instance, if you had a factory, and your margin was very small, a four lane road might mean that your trucks need to sit in traffic for a substantial part of the day. That lost productivity could erase your margin. A larger road might mean that can deliver twice as much product in the same time, which enables you to stay in business.
Saying that roads are "pigeon-holed" because they can only move vehicles from point A to point B is the equiv. of saying that fiber lines are "pigeon-holed" because they only move data packets form point A to point B. It is the payload that matters.
Re:Can we ever have too much Capacity? (Score:2)
Dear lordy...golly-gee-wilikers!
Mr. Fenn was later quoted on saying "We believe we should not pursue any research, since it costs too much. Also, we plan on cutting back on our electricity production, learning from our Californian friends. The Internet is after al
Too little too late? (Score:4, Interesting)
But as a d00d working in an ISP that offers both high-speed wDSL and dialup, i say they missed the mark by about 5 years.
Sure there are geeks like us that demand high-speed inet, but for the most part, i see people leaving high-speed in droves to go back to dialup.
It appears that even though broadband is cheaper than it has ever been, there are enough people still trying to justify the cost to check their email a few times a week.
The Internet Craze Is Over(tm).
AWESOME! (Score:2, Funny)
Go back to your dial-up mere mortals. Leave us all the more bandwith to download the 1,001 Linux distro ISO's out there.
Re:Too little too late? (Score:3, Informative)
> in droves to go back to dialup.
I don't know, i see a lot of relatives with very little computing skills turning to broadband, just because it's easier and faster. They're all in the 50-65 age-range and i'm actually impressed at how far they've come in using the internet (3 years ago it was "can you explain the internet to me", now they do flights, shopping, maps, general info, tv listin
Re:Too little too late? (Score:2)
You got that right. It's rather interesting if you're not Mormon. (Not a flame. Plain truth for anyone who has experienced every neighbor trying to convert you.) Frankly, I'm surprised Utah wants high-speed access to a medium exploding with adult content.
>i see people leaving high-speed in droves to go back to dialup.
I'm on the verge of returning to dial-up. Two reasons. #1 I don't have the time to goof off online and #2 my local cable company is
Re:Too little too late? (Score:5, Funny)
You got Comcast too??
Re:Too little too late? (Score:2, Informative)
1-utah has a growing IT population and ANY improvement to public access will improve business access like a chain reaction. both from quality and price.
2-We have broadband here and it is OK but I know a lot of non techies that would purchase more if they could.
3-I hate the RIAA and MPAA so this is only better for file swapping.
Well, now I am also going to admit that life would still go on w/o this but I think and public
Hmmm... Maybe your employer is in trouble... (Score:3, Informative)
From April 2003: Broadband adoption races ahead in US [onlinepublishingnews.com]
A little older, 2002: More consumers hooked on broadband [com.com]
I think you get the idea...
Re:Too little too late? (Score:3, Interesting)
There's lots and lots of content that really demands high speed access to be usable that isn't geek-specific at all. Heck - your average webpage these days practically requires high speed just to load in under a minute, what with all the various nee
Re:Too little too late? (Score:2)
Re:Too little too late? (Score:3, Informative)
I had broadband. I cancelled it a few months ago. Last week, I got it back and killed my landline instead and it's all because of money.
Dialup requirements:
Local phone service - $20/month plus 10c per call is approx. $35
Long Distance - approx. $15 at 5c a minute
ISP - $15/month TOTAL: $65
Broadband:
Cable internet access: $41/month
And that's it. I couldn't believe I was actually paying more for dialup when I did the math. Now I use my cell for calls. I have fewer bills to pay and don't now feel l
Will they censor in the name of community mores? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Will they censor in the name of community mores (Score:5, Insightful)
For the rest of us, there's nobody telling us that we can't go pick up a move that's rated "R" if we want to, or for that matter go to an adult video store with "XXX" videos, or get them on pay-per=view, or whatever... Sure, they've tried..but failed, since the majority of people figured out that it was a stupid idea to begin with.
So I can pretty confidently say that they won't try to force a filter onto people, we're not talking about China here!
I'll be the first to tell you that Utah has some oddities...especially when it comes to alcohol laws. But if you haven't lived here, (and I have, my entire 27 years), then forgive me for being blunt, but you don't have a clue.
Get real! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Get real! (Score:2)
Re:You betcha! (Score:2)
As long as this is being funded locally, great! (Score:4, Insightful)
Jon Acheson
Re:As long as this is being funded locally, great! (Score:2)
I like your attitude. Now, can you mail me a check to repay me for all these damned Universal Service Fees I've been slugged with for all these years? You know, where the people in the cities pay for something that's only going to benefit others?
One phrase: (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, it's a good idea in some ways, but isn't there major potential for DOS attacks? I mean against the local network, can't you monopolize pretty much all the bandwidth of the neighborhood fiber? I guess you can get into QOS metering and stuff, but that's a hassle.
This is really cool though in that it goes back to what the internet really is - peer to peer at its lowest level. Everyone is a client, everyone is a server, everyone has a public IP. No more of this corporate-shoved consumerism dreck. Very cool
hmmm (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:hmmm (Score:2)
The whole idea is to provide the best product at the cheapest price to the consumer. If the government is able to do this better than you or other ISPs are, why should you stay in business with your current product offering?
Re:hmmm (Score:2)
Re:hmmm (Score:3)
The "real" unfairness is the government's ability to compel subscription to (and/or investment in) the service via taxes, with which a private company truly can't compete.
However, insofar as the government is really just the unified voice of the people, as long as the populace consents to underwrite the service as a wise use of their tax dollars I don't see a whole lot wrong with it.
Now
Re:Government doesn't "compete" (Score:2)
And, as far as local taxes go, you can always vote with your feet.
They need the bandwidth (Score:2, Funny)
Did you see that burn mark by the I-15 on Point of the Mountain? that's the fiber optic running underground to Canopy
Should the government really be providing this? (Score:4, Interesting)
The government does not provide phone infrastructure, it instead regulates the companies that provide telephone service. I wouldn't want my telephone, television, newspaper, radio, or internet access to come from one extremely powerful group who would have a significant interest in manipulating information for their own benefit.
Re:Should the government really be providing this? (Score:5, Insightful)
The job of the government is to provide whatever we, the people, want it to provide. It's quite common to task governments with running businesses when the private sector has failed to deliver.
if it's directly the government's service, there is a large potential for filtering or other restrictions on access, and a much greater threat for logging one's activities. I do not like this idea.
Utah has the kind of government its voters elected. I don't like that government, you may not like it, but they do. As long as it's within the Constitution, they are free to do that.
I wouldn't want my telephone, television, newspaper, radio, or internet access to come from one extremely powerful group who would have a significant interest in manipulating information for their own benefit.
Well, that's exactly what you are getting when you leave those things to big businesses. Government-run services are preferable in my opinion. In fact, "government run" doesn't mean "centralized"--this kind of effort is an excellent candidate for being run at a city/town level.
I prefer government-run to big-business-run. At least governments are accountable to voters. The best situation is, of course, to have lots of little, independent companies. But that isn't always achievable.
Re:Should the government really be providing this? (Score:2)
Great! Most of the people where I live would like government to provide religious education to children.
Re:Should the government really be providing this? (Score:2)
Re:Should the government really be providing this? (Score:2)
I would think that if the government was providing your internet access and censoring it that would be unconstitutional. You know, free speech and all that.
Re:Should the government really be providing this? (Score:2)
My only problem is that it should be under federal control, and not any local government. The federal government is bound by the constitution and most importantly the first amendment, they would have a much harder time legally filtering content.
Should Governements control the internet (Score:2)
I like competetion and I hope they'll probably lease the lines to various providers who can end up providing new services at cheap prices.
Anyway, this will make jobs. (thus the Rosevelt reference.)
With a name like Utopia though..
Re:Should Governements control the internet (Score:2)
don't think its a bad thing that critical infrastructure like this be in public hands.
Here, Here. I think there is a very persuasive case to say that the implementation of the local loop and even to some extent trunk routes is a very close analogy to the utility distribution networks (electricity, gas and water). The state (or at least a state funded natural monopoly) provides the underlying infrastructure and then the service providers buy space on this infrastructure to provide their service to the
Governement control (Score:2)
additionally, this will create a lot of new business opportunities. i'm interested in getting a place in the mountains and this would sure as hell sell
Most telling part of the article (Score:5, Insightful)
What would you personally do with $1100 dollars? Would you spend it so you can have the potential of spending another $1400 and monthly fees to get more bandwidth than you would ever need right now?
Now how about enforcing that on every homeowner in your city?
Re:Most telling part of the article (Score:2)
Be careful when you make statements like that. How much bandwidth do you need right now? How much do you want? How much will you need in 5 years? How much did you have 5 years ago, and what's the difference between what you had then and what you have now?
Of course, there is the issue that in 5 years, there might be some cheaper technology that can get you the same bandwidth for less initial capital expenditure and similar monthly expense... so who know
Re:Most telling part of the article (Score:2)
My point is, we live in a society. Paying for things that may not directly benefit us is an unavoidable part of the equation. If I don't own a car, does that mean I don't get any benefit from the portion of my taxes used to pave roads? Of course not.
If you want complete control over your finances, I suggest moving to the Arctic tundra.
Re:Most telling part of the article (Score:2)
10 years, 2500 bucks. thats around $21 a month.
People pay that much for dial-up. Plus this infrastructure can handle VOD, HDTV, telephony, etc.
As far as the scares of filtering, its your government. And its
Re:Most telling part of the article (Score:3, Insightful)
They can get it. Its not easy, but not impossible.
>increases the economy because more companies will go to the area
Read my original question: How does fibre to the HOME increase the economy? Not to commercial sites, but to the home?
>municipal government does the job the citizens want it to do
Biggest thing for goverments to do by the majority of citizens? Protection and better fiscal responsiblity. Not faster br
Re:Most telling part of the article (Score:2)
Re:Most telling part of the article (Score:2)
Hot Sauce and gourmet stuff [sammcgees.com]
Mozilla and Linux customers get 5%
Public subsidized MISTAKE (Score:4, Insightful)
Is this what you want? The same bureaucrats who have ruined education, who have done nothing but porked their budgets out of control -- you want these guys serving your high speed data?
Re:Public subsidized MISTAKE (Score:2)
but we a very fine public education system(in finland), one that would not exist if it was 'for profit', or at the very least it would rank the education possibilities according to how much money your parents have.
the privates didn't want to provide this service, so they're moving in to provide it(as it's needed to spur up the intrest in the region). they want people to be happy there, to draw more tech savvy people and tech jobs into the area. to in the end turn up more profit for eve
What cities? (Score:2)
Utah? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Utah? (Score:2)
Not since Novell started supporting IPv4. Thank goodness for that, they'd all be on one giant IPX network over there otherwise.
Development (Score:5, Insightful)
Jerry Fenn, the president of the Utah division of Qwest, the regional telephone company here that provides its own high-speed Internet access, said there were few uses yet for the network Utopia plans to deliver.
The speeds to be provided "are way more than what most consumers need in their home," Mr. Fenn said, adding, "Why provide a Rolls-Royce when a Chevrolet will do?"
This is exactly the line of thinking that prevents projects like this from implementation all accross the country. Just because "it's more than we need" right now does not mean it won't be down the road. It's the chicken and egg situation of the tech sector- no one will build it until there is a need, but there will not be a need unless it's there for people to develop uses on. Sort of ironic coming from a society which prides itself in gas gussling SUVs and exhorbitant homes.
Even though I live on the other side of the country, I hope this goes through, if not for the geeks of Utah, but for the hopes that municipal (read not controlled by draconian corporations) communications infrastructure can be rolled out in other places too.
Re:Development (Score:2)
Re:Development (Score:2)
Why should they divert money from important city functions (911, hospitals, local schools, road maintance) that is needed right now for something they MIGHT need years down the line?
How about where we are in the road, right now?
Re:Development (Score:2)
Why look into renewable energy sources? We have lots of oil left.
I agree with you on the Just because "it's more than we need" right now does not mean it won't be down the road. It's the chicken and egg situation of the tech sector- no one will build it until there is a need, but there will not be a need unless it's there for people to develop uses on.
Why the hell are we so reactive to problems and not proactive? Why dont we make an entire switch to renewable energy sources
Kinda funny to see this in the news... (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course LARGE cities end up in the news for mentioning they'll be rolling out fiber someday now, while us smaller cities that have had a fiber network for a couple years never get mentioned.
Great idea (Score:2)
A statewide network should do what the state wanted, attract more business, as well as provide it's citizens with high speed bandwidth
Of all the states in the Union... (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh well, if it turns out profitable there,
maybe other areas will copy the idea and we can finally catch up to Canada and Malaysia in terms of
bandwidth per connected household.
Maybe this could also bring back the days of people running personal servers off thier home connections. I miss surfing the web at the edge of the network. With so many EULA's preventing servers period it has slowly started to mirror other content distribution systems.. all push all the time.
Big Brother is watching you (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd have to do some heavy reading into their privacy policy before I signed up for this.
Headline Correction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Headline Correction (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't see it happening... (Score:2, Informative)
Given that Salt Lake City (where I live and work) is in a budget crunch like most everywhere else, I can't see where the money will come from to lay fiber everywhere. The cost of DSL is about $50 a month for 640down/256up, $40 for 256/256, and Comcast cable costs about $45 (without cable TV). Whi
Forget filtering... (Score:2, Interesting)
Now what would scare me with government run ISPs is their complete compliance with the rest of the government (i.e. the judiciary). Is Utah's state run ISP going to fight subpeona's of their users traffic records? Of course not! The government and media are all ready so far under the covers together that handing one control of the pipe while the other controls the content is a Bad Idea. If
utopia website (Score:2, Informative)
Speed, liability, and censorship (Score:2)
So, if an ISP starts getting sued, or for that matte
Public Works and Utilities (Score:5, Interesting)
Create a municipal digital network, and allow cable/telecom companies to actually compete. If anything, people should have learned their lesson -- when Comcast offers to build your infrastructure 'for free', its monopoly is going to cost more than the upfront cost to have done it publicly.
Similarly with power lines and water/sewer. There is a basic conflict of interest between a corporations who are focused on profit above all else, and the public good which is focused on dependability and quality above all else. for example: consider the power transmission infrastructure.
sure, if the consumer cares about quality and dependability, the free-market should bear out those providers who manage such standards. However, the shared infrastruture -punishes- companies who invest (all its competitors benefit from the increased quality, only the investor takes the financial hit and then has to charge -more-, pricing itself out of the game).
The logical step is simply taking jurisdiction of the local lines back on the local level, and the long-haul lines on the federal level (think US highway/road system).
it's not like our infrastructure couldn't use a nice big upgrade anyway. and the telecom industry could certainly benefit from some public works projects to bid on.
Q: How do I get a DIRECT internet connection? (Score:2)
I pay my dialup ISP $10/mo for access. They pay big bucks to Verizon for access. Who does Verizon pay for access? How do I get on without the middle man, or is it not possible because I dont own a bunch of fiber lines?
If you traceroute a connection between here and accross the country I find myself going from major ISP to major ISP, but who lets those ISPs on? I understand ICANN but I dont thin
Re:Q: How do I get a DIRECT internet connection? (Score:2)
Is the tide turning? (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps that's just wishful thinking on my part. Personally, I don't place myself in either camp. It all depends on the product being produces. Do I want a for-profit company making decisions about my medical coverage? Hell no! Do I want the government making my car? Of course not!
In this case, it only makes sense that a critical infrastructure like Internet service be provided by the state. Charging me $50/month for my broadband connection seems ridiculously high. Either the the cable company is terribly inefficient or they will be making money hand over fist far into the future.
We all know companies set prices where they will make the most profit, the public be damned, with no obligation to social justice issues. They don't care if nearly 33% of the population can't aford to shell out $50/month for broadband. All that matters to them is that it will make them more money if they gouge those who can afford to pay and leave lower income folks out in the cold.
Been there, done that... (Score:4, Informative)
There are some minor problems. Technically, the staff of the city network need to gain a little experience. But overall, it has been a pleasant experience and I recommend it to everyone else.
It's about time the rest of the state catches up to us. Heck, we're just a little ol' cowboy town that barely knows how to find the 'on' button for our com-poot-urs.
The official site for Utopia.... (Score:2, Interesting)
A note about the funding for the project from the above web site:
The UTOPIA business case indicates that wholesale usage fees, charged to service providers based on their use of the network, will generate enough revenue to pay the capital investment costs, operating expenses, and debt service obligations associated with building and maintaing the network. No taxpayer money will be needed. However, in order to secu
IPV6 (Score:2)
How commercial would it be? (Score:2)
Fiber is the next utillity (Score:3, Insightful)
1. The only worthwile infrastructure for the future is fiber. This is a statement of fact/religion. Wireless may be nice in your house, but as a shared infrastructure it doesn't work for high speed data services.
2. Having companies lay 2, 3, 4, 5 parallel fiber infrastructures to each house amounts to a huge investment which you can't earn back over time.
3. To save on the investment on the physical and datalink layer. The fiber and active components at the end of each street are owned by a not-for-profit organisation, this can be customer owned, owned by housing corporations, Public Private Partnership, public organisations or maybe even private organisations.
4. Routing is done in such a way that local traffic stays as local as possible. You can actually make local traffic free, because the fiber and active components have been paid for already (with a mild cap maybe to keep people from hogging bandwidth)
5. The whole network is hooked up to one or more central locations which act like Internet Exchanges. Here corporations hook up their networks. An ISP could expand its network to individual users via VLAN's. An end user just subscribes to a VLAN to get a service. This allows for easy access to end users for all suppliers and for easy changing of suppliers by end-users. At this central location you will also find bandwidth intensive services like video on demand. (Just like one builds an electricity intensive company next to a hydrodam)
6. It would be great if you could have indivdual vlans per device, so your IP-phone hooks up to a different vlan than your securitycam than your ISP-connection. This allows for easy access to multiple services without the nescessity to route everything through your ISP first. Power to the people.
All in all given an investment of about 1100euros per household this would amount to about 15 euros per month for 15 years. This would generate a total revenue of about 2700 euros for 15 years. That would about cover for organisation, maintenance and new kit every 5 years. On top of this the end user would get a service bill where each service gets indidually charged.
So all in all: Physical and datalink layer are a utility, all higher layers are not a utility and need to be payed for one way or another. Though local traffic could be free.
Ask slashdot: Why is bandwidth still so expensive (Score:3, Interesting)
The only possible reason I see is price fixing.
Anyone else see a different logical reason for it?
Re:95 Mb downstream, 56K upstream? (Score:5, Funny)
Upstream? Now that's just silly. Obviously, everyone only *downloads*, so uploading isn't an issue. A downloads from B, B downloads from C, and C downloads from A. It all works out in a beautiful Escher-esque way, each node feeding off of each other, downhill both ways...
Re:95 Mb downstream, 56K upstream? (Score:2, Troll)
56k upstream is their way of limiting the amount of unholy peer-to-peer pr0n sharing.
I am at least halfway kidding.
Re:Yay! (Score:2)
Re:Silicon Valley? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:not 'if' but 'how much' (Score:2)
Companies are free to do whatever they want. If there's a market for it, companies will produce product. It doesn't force anything upon you.
There's also many companies (Blockbuster, Hollywood Video) on about every corner here who sell the regular, unedited videos.
It's all about choice. Get over it if everyone doesn't choose to view what you do. Personally, I don't care to watch the videos from the edited
Re:Envy? (Score:2)
All nine of them...