AT&T Lobbies Against Nationwide Fiber, Says 10Mbps Uploads Are Good Enough (arstechnica.com) 260
AT&T is lobbying against proposals to subsidize fiber-to-the-home deployment across the U.S., arguing that rural people don't need fiber and should be satisfied with Internet service that provides only 10Mbps upload speeds. Ars Technica reports: AT&T Executive VP Joan Marsh detailed the company's stance Friday in a blog post titled "Defining Broadband For the 21st Century." AT&T's preferred definition of 21st-century broadband could be met with wireless technology or AT&T's VDSL, a 14-year-old system that brings fiber to neighborhoods but uses copper telephone wires for the final connections into each home.
"[T]here would be significant additional cost to deploy fiber to virtually every home and small business in the country, when at present there is no compelling evidence that those expenditures are justified over the service quality of a 50/10 or 100/20Mbps product," AT&T wrote. (That would be 50Mbps download speeds with 10Mbps upload speeds or 100Mbps downloads with 20Mbps uploads.) AT&T said that "overbuilding" areas that already have acceptable speeds "would needlessly devalue private investment and waste broadband-directed dollars." "Overbuilding" is what the broadband industry calls one ISP building in an area already served by another ISP, whereas Internet users desperate for cheaper, faster, and more reliable service call that "broadband competition."
"[T]here would be significant additional cost to deploy fiber to virtually every home and small business in the country, when at present there is no compelling evidence that those expenditures are justified over the service quality of a 50/10 or 100/20Mbps product," AT&T wrote. (That would be 50Mbps download speeds with 10Mbps upload speeds or 100Mbps downloads with 20Mbps uploads.) AT&T said that "overbuilding" areas that already have acceptable speeds "would needlessly devalue private investment and waste broadband-directed dollars." "Overbuilding" is what the broadband industry calls one ISP building in an area already served by another ISP, whereas Internet users desperate for cheaper, faster, and more reliable service call that "broadband competition."
So a business selling internet access does not (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Also reminds me of the old Lily Tomlin SNL sketch [vimeo.com] - "We don't care, we don't have to,
What happened to AT&T? (Score:5, Interesting)
Are they refusing the obvious because they are so badly managed and carry so much debt? This company used to be the gold standard of network-service providers - like a UUnet. Now? They're a laughing stock that has to be shamed into delivering minimal fiber speeds.
It's a sad day.
Re:What happened to AT&T? (Score:5, Informative)
Don't forget this isn't that AT&T anymore. That's a very important mistake they want you to make. This "AT&T" is actually a completely unrelated company called Cingular that got away with naming itself AT&T after the previous AT&T folded about 15 or so years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Aha! That's a great point. I completely forgot about the Cingular taint. Thank you. :)
Re: (Score:2)
They used to tell me that I had 'an old blue account', because Cingular was very orange.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Meanwhile (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Tell that to the astroturf posters above who are apparently happy with crappy xDSL tech from like 15yrs ago. Reminds me of that old Bill Gates quote about 640K RAM being good enough. Just absurd.
AT&T can push 400Gbps and higher speeds on inter-city links but God forbid they should deliver reasonable speeds to their customers.
Re: (Score:2)
It’s sad. I look at the telephone poles in my area, sagging with far too much copper and they still can’t manage to upgrade it to fiber in a reasonable timeline. I can’t imagine they have any customers, as Cable provides an order of magnitude better service. Just strange they can’t phase out all the copper for a ~20 mile stretch and migrate all existing copper customers to a small gateway midspan.
Re: (Score:3)
The result is something that cost easily as much as an FTTP rollout & costs 3x as much to maintain, is far less reliable (especially in wet weather), cannot be easily upgraded to faster speeds, and is generally lamented as the biggest wa
I Hear Echoes Of The Past (Score:2)
Devalue private investments (Score:5, Informative)
Telcos have been given so much public money in return for empty promises that the existing networks can hardly be considered a private investment. FTTH should be in every business and home by now. That it isn't is devaluing public investment.
On the matter of upload speeds: If you need to be in a teleconference (or Zoom call as these are apparently called now) while your kids are attending online classes, you know 10 Mbit/s isn't going to cut it.
I lived in Strasbourg France for two years (Score:4, Insightful)
We got fiber to the house. Everyone did. Gb down 100mbit up. Fastest internet I've ever had. They sent 4k TV through that pipe too. Pretty much every TV station was 4k to homes via fiber. And you got silly bandwidth too. Took the high speed rail to Paris every few weeks too, 230kmh.
America is very behind.
Re: (Score:3)
We got fiber to the house. Everyone did. Gb down 100mbit up. Fastest internet I've ever had. They sent 4k TV through that pipe too. Pretty much every TV station was 4k to homes via fiber. And you got silly bandwidth too. Took the high speed rail to Paris every few weeks too, 230kmh.
America is very behind.
It's much easier to just keep saying that you're number one, than to have some introspection and admit that there could be room for improvement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I lived in Strasbourg France for two years (Score:5, Informative)
America is very behind.
That's a nice anecdote, but the speed testing data [speedtest.net] tells a different story. The US (180) and France (184) are practically the same. Most of Europe is in fact ranks lower than the US.
Re: I lived in Strasbourg France for two years (Score:3, Insightful)
Itâ(TM)s the difference between true market forces and governments demanding certain speeds. The ISPs in Europe often give labeled speeds demanded by the government and then blame the exchanges and the government infrastructure for failing to actually provide sufficient bandwidth or connections to peopleâ(TM)s homes.
In the US, if you want faster speeds, you can just pay more and when sufficient people pay for more, they can go ahead and implement upgrades.
Re: (Score:2)
And whom would you believe such numbers when everyone I know from the US is complaining about non existing high speed internet, especially in rural areas?
Or unaffordable, especially in rural areas? And still expensive in urban areas?
The numbers are pretty meaningless anyway, as there is no explanation what they are actually measuring.
Re: (Score:2)
And whom would you believe such numbers when everyone I know from the US is complaining about non existing high speed internet, especially in rural areas?
In the battle between: a) actually measured values and b) "everyone I know says". I'm most definitely going with the data. That's what a reasonable person would do. Any data, even if it's seriously flawed, is better than he said / she said.
Re: (Score:2)
Well,
the data is clear. USA has worst internet on the planet.
Price wise, speed wise.
Oki, better than places were there is no internet ... accepted.
Re: (Score:2)
Speedtest data is almost completely meaningless... There are so many problems with their data set.
It is completely unscientific, and in no way benchmarks the performance of the ISP or the country. For example:
Higher speed connections may be bottlenecked by end user equipment, poor wifi signal, misconfiguration etc - things outside the control of the ISP.
Most ISPs provide multiple tiers of service, users may achieve a lower score because they intentionally bought a lower service tier rather than it being an
Re: (Score:3)
Speedtest data is almost completely meaningless... There are so many problems with their data set.
I'm sure there are tons of problems with their data set. But wouldn't call it meaningless. It's still a hell of a lot better measure of reality than one guy's experience living in one city in France. If you've got better data to look at then please share.
Re: I lived in Strasbourg France for two years (Score:3)
Umm.. I think you need a histogram, you obviously can't just average things like 10mb, 100mb, 1000mb
You're averaging away a lot of shitty DSL with cable and fiber speeds on a logarithmic scale. If the whole country actually had ~200mbps internet we'd actually be pretty damn well off, but their 1g doesn't make your 10mb able to Webex and Google at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
What that sites doesn't show is the disparity. If almost everyone in France can get at least 100mbps up but in the US you are either stuck with 1mbps up or enjoying 1000mbps up, well the average might be the same but one situation is a lot worse than the other.
Re: (Score:2)
Depending on rail 270 - 330 km/h.
10MB or "up to" 10MB? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd bet my Gig/E connect that these goofy speeds will come with some cap or bandwidth throttling mechanism ala Comcast or these mobile networks.
I still can't believe we're talking about some 15-20yr old copper tech in 2021. That's just shameful.
This AT&T nonsense is just their management trying to skimp on delivering respectable internet speeds.
And for those people saying 10Mbps is "good enough" - take out all that "extra" RAM in your PCs. Clearly, 640k is good enough for you.
And along comes Starlink (Score:3)
I think ATT is going to discover that their attitude and copper infrastructure is going to be a losing combination for those rural customers that can pay for Starlink access and a millstone around their neck for customers that can't and they are mandated to provide subsidized service for.
Re: (Score:2)
JFC, I was just gonna mention Starlink too. Sure it might have some high latency (maybe) but they could easily steal these rural customers that AT&T will NEVER get back.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
One thing people keep forgetting is that net neutrality in the US had carve-outs for data delivered via wireless means. Killing wired infrastructure and moving to wireless means they can keep many of their monopolistic practices in place while meeting the letter of the law.
Re: (Score:2)
5G can't get feasibly/economically get rid of copper unless the towers are high up in the air, like say space. SpaceX Starlink.
We all know what that means... (Score:2)
Translation: "We don't want to use any more of the money we were given to build out broadband to actually build out broadband." I can sort of see their point, why throw more money down the hole of improving customer experience, when you can just not do that and the regulators won't do anything? A 50/10 connection might work for some people now, but it will be inadequate for more people in the future. If they're using typical industry methods, most connections on these lines probably aren't even getting the
Re: (Score:2)
They probably need that cash to sustain their hefty dividend, and maybe buy back stock...
Then I recommend... (Score:5, Informative)
We dissolve and re-regulate AT&T. Or Uncle Sam send them a gigantic invoice.
Back in the '90s, the Baby Bells promoted an internet-like service called Video Dial Tone [servsig.org]. They promised to replace old copper telephone lines with fiber in exchange for deregulation, tax breaks, increased profit margins, and the ability to sell a-la-carte services, including call waiting, call forwarding, and Caller ID. Pacific Bell alone promised five million homes connected via fiber by the year 2000. [nytimes.com] To date, hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars have gone to present-day companies AT&T, CenturyLink, and Verizon [newnetworks.com] in exchange for these fiber-to-the-home installations, that never happened. And now they have the nerve to tell us that DSL is good enough.
So it seems reasonable to either demand our money back, or seize the company.
Re: (Score:2)
In any other ordinary commercial setting this would be, at best, breach of contract or, at worst, fraud in the inducement. Unfortunately, people have developed very short memories.
Simple solution; muni-fiber (Score:4, Interesting)
AT&T/Cox/Comcast don't want to invest in a better network. That's fine. Kill the cable and telecom local monopoly. If they don't want to invest in fiber then let the local government do it.
Starlink (Score:2)
Stop paying these fools and subsidize Starlink instead.
You know why they're saying this (Score:2)
AT&T owns this huge 100+ year old copper infrastructure that already goes everywhere, and they want to capitalize on it. Putting in fiber everywhere would make their copper infrastructure pointless. Not just because of internet access, but because VOIP makes conventional phones pointless.
No wonder they're fighting tooth and nail. This is their entire business.
It's exactly like a buggy whip manufacturer telling the government that there's no reason for anyone to go faster than 30 miles per hour.
Re: (Score:3)
Putting in fiber everywhere would make their copper infrastructure pointless.
Several years ago, AT&T dug up every yard in my neighborhood so they could replace their aging copper cables with...new copper cables! It would have been a golden opportunity to lay fiber, but they didn't take it. I was stunned.
Recently, the local utility company dug up many yards in order to lay fiber bundles. As it turns out, they're preparing for a public/private partnership where the utility owns and maintains the infrastructure, and private companies run the IPS's.
Re: (Score:2)
The cost of maintaining that copper network is absurd. They all want to replace as much of it as possible... they just don’t want to use the energy to improve customer experience for today’s needs, so they overload a DSLAM on a telephone pole rather than bring fiber to the customer.
Re: (Score:3)
Side note, VOIP sucks for reliability when compared to POTS./p>
Translation.. (Score:5, Insightful)
What I really hear AT&T saying is: Actual, real high-speed internet is not for poors. :-(
Or at least: We don't want to invest the money necessary to allow older neighborhoods to have faster, business-type connections in their homes so they can continue to work from home.
AT&T is evil (Score:2)
The good news is that the guys from Google Fiber (o
Hooray for the "free market" (Score:2)
Where corporate leaders don't just push the laws to the limit, they write those laws for you. Apparently anything that even vaguely threatens the ability of a company to maintain their profit is unacceptable, and don't dare propose spending taxpayer money on something that a private company could do, that's just dirty old "socialism".
How is that so much of America is terrified of anything vaguely representing government intervention but are seemingly happy to let corporate interests run their lives?
Last mile copper (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
telco/cable cabinets just open to the elements, cable splices just wrapped up in trash bags to keep the elements out.
Where have you seen this?
Re: (Score:2)
I see open cabinets all over the place along main roads.
ATT is obsolete... (Score:2)
I get 4x the speed with Comcast for half the price....
Losing money (Score:3)
Wait.. what? The CEO made $22.5mil in 2019 and $21mil in 2020.
Yeah, improving service to customers is too expensive.
Luckily I live 6 month per year in Thailand (Score:2)
My village has roughly 2000 inhabitants. Is in the middle of nowhere and: everyone has fiber, for roughly $12 per month (unlimited, of course).
Re: (Score:2)
While I miss Thailand (damn Covid), internet was very much hit and miss. It has gotten much better, but even in Bangkok I never got great speeds. On the islands in Surat Thanni it is dramatically worse.
Chok Di!
Even John Oliver... (Score:2)
In other countries (Score:2)
Meanwhile in Spain... (Score:2)
How much of rural US gets 10Mbps upload? (Score:3)
Once you're more than a mile from the exchange, you'll be lucky to get 10Mbps down, much less up.
DSL supposedly offers 90% coverage, but how much of that gets 10Mbps upload?
My guess is less than 1%
Re:10 mbps uploads are good enough (Score:5, Insightful)
It is true that I barely get 1mbps upload but it is not true that it is "enough" for me. I need at least 2mbps upload to accomplish my goals. The notion that AT&T is in danger of offering 10mbps anywhere is laughable.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: 10 mbps uploads are good enough (Score:3)
To be the biggest and baddest you need to make sure someone else does not get a free ride to be bigger and badder.
It is not so much fiber they fight. It is the free lunch for their competitors they worry about. The argument used is nonsensical, but I guess it is the only one they have.
Re: (Score:3)
Remember when USA had people who were believers and had a strong backbone? Now it is just full of people who say "everything is too hard".
Thank god the posters attitude was not the attitude the people of USA had about power lines and phone lines.
Re: (Score:3)
This is exactly the problem that 5G is designed to solve. Trying to install fiber across every last mile of rural America is insanity.
Your argument would hold water provided mobile carriers were willing to remove 5G data caps. But they're not. They're all wishy-washy about it. If two kids doing remote schooling can be on 5G Zoom all day and then 5G Netflix all evening like they can with fiber without penalty, then sure, bring it on. Otherwise, this line of argument needs to come to an end.
Trying to in
Re: 10 mbps uploads are good enough (Score:3)
You could, you know, stick an antenna on your roof to receive the 5G signal into your home. Your phone can be on 4G.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's plenty to do anything 99.9% of people need to do.
I think more than 1 in 1000 might want stream some kind of quality video. Games, tutorials, whatever. 10Mbps is enough to dip your toe in the water, but you couldn't do the highest quality even at 1080p, and it leaves no headroom for anything else.
That said, if you're not a streamer, you're not hurting by any means at 10Mbps up.
Re: (Score:3)
AT&T is fucking laughable. I'm on DSL and I get 75 down, 15 up, which is adequate for our three person household.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just that, people need their TV, smart speakers and ring cams as well.
Heaven forbid they shouldn't be able to download three different TV streams simultaneously while grandma is on a video conference.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to equate 10Mbps uploads with 10Mbps downloads.
10 Mbps uploads make for about 1MegaByte per second effective transfer rate, which is a very good number indeed... if you actually have it.
On cable, you also have a much higher download speed than upload speed (I seem to have 140 Mbps download and 10 Mbps upload).
With 140Mbps download on cable (and 10 Mbps upload) I can comfortably see 4k content on youtube or netflix.
And the upload rate is not good enough only when I want to "wetransfer" large files -
Re: (Score:2)
Re:10 mbps uploads are good enough (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone is a streamer now, even if their choice of streaming software is Zoom or MS Teams.
Re: (Score:2)
You can do three simultaneous low res live video streams with 10 Mbit/s if you don't move about too much and accept the occasional stutter and compression artifacts, but you shouldn't have to. (Not what people do? Yeah, nobody's doing home office while the kids attend online classes. Why would they?)
Re: 10 mbps uploads are good enough (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, you cannot get 4K in 3Mbps in real time unless you're effectively transmitting still images. Just because you can have a pre-produced HEVC stream in 4K at very low average bit rates doesn't mean you can do high resolution HEVC with a peak bit rate of 3 Mbps and no information about the future that the codec could use. Requirements for live transmissions are different than for Netflix.
Re:10 mbps uploads are good enough (Score:5, Interesting)
When computers were first invented, it was thought they'd be a small niche, with maybe 5 total computers in the world, then software was seen as nothing but an aside, then it was said that 640k of RAM would be enough for anyone ... you know where this is going.
And that's why you know nothing and are as good as dead, because your imagination and sociological awareness has ceased to function, so when we want the opinion of a zombie, we will come straight to you
Fact is, edge micro services that are independent of Apple, Twitter, Facebook, Google, AWS and Azure is the future and we have a whole new generation of kids that in 10 or so years will be creating their own interconnected services and networks. And to self host they sure as shit will need 100Mbps upload speed at a minimum.
And don't be a classist bigot and say "rural areas are just backwards hicks who don't need tech". In today's world, everyone needs tech, and in many ways that you might not even imagine. Plus, the face of rural America is changing many savvy people who want to build their services are forced to leave the cities and migrate to rural areas, where they can exist working remotely while building their services without having to work 2 or 3 jobs just to live in poverty, bringing those speeds out to those areas will help boost migration from the big cities, boosting rural economies while helping to free up housing in the urban areas -- helping to alleviate some of the issues we've been having with the "cluster effect" across this nation that has exacerbated income inequality
We need a bare minimum of 100Mbps to unlock the potential of the next wave of computing that will help diversify online platforms and help break the stranglehold big tech has on our lives -- but if it were up to zombies like you, we'd never have that, we'd be stagnant
Re: (Score:2)
Re: 10 mbps uploads are good enough (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"640kB of RAM should be enough for everyone" ...) might be questionable, its result was to have 640kB (in 10 memory segments of 64 kB) of "available" memory semi-directly.
The baseline was a processor that could access "only" 1MB of RAM (unified memory space) when most computers had 32 and 64 kB of RAM.
While the choice to leave the "0 to 640kB memory space" for memory and the "640kB to 1MB" to memory mapped devices (network cards, display adapters, disk drive adapters, sound cards,
So yes, 640 kB should be en
Re:10 mbps uploads are good enough (Score:5, Insightful)
Cost... If i'm running a small site or email server for personal use or a small handful of friends, i'm not going to be paying a lot to host it outside.
Ease of setup.
Privacy... I want to know and control exactly who has access to the data.
Anyone should be able to buy a cheap raspberry pi and host a small server at home.
10 mbps uploads are not good enough when cable (Score:2)
10 mbps uploads are not good enough when cable was higher ones.
Att is not the only game and cable can do more then old DSL
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know anyone who has fiber who wishes they didn't.
The focus doesn't need to be on uploads, that is not the only thing you get from fiber.
Re:10 mbps uploads are good enough (Score:5, Informative)
No, not really. You can come pretty close to stuffing a 10mbit uplink with a single H.264 1080p video stream. It isn't that far fetched to have one or both parents "telecommuting" these days with 1 or more kids also doing remote schooling. Granted, we won't have a permanent state of pandemic working/learning from home scenario, but these things can and do happen.
I have a Comcast connection. Download speeds are fine at almost 200mbits, but upstream bandwidth is more like 5-6mb and with the whole family sharing that bandwidth lately for work and school, I've had to throttle camera resolutions down to 720p or 480p to make it work. Without some significant breakthrough in compression tech, I don't see that dramatically improving anytime soon. The instant there is competition in my area with a better alternative, I'll be first in line to sign up. And that probably accounts for much of the population of the US. There just isn't any credible competition in many areas.
So if ATT wants to draw their line in the sand at 10mb and other providers are willing to invest to provide more bandwidth, I'd welcome that and ATT will eventually be pushed aside. Rent seeking and monopolist behavior didn't work out so well for ATT in the POTS or long distance businesses either.
Best,
Re: (Score:2)
Rent seeking and monopolist behavior didn't work out so well for ATT in the POTS or long distance businesses either.
Best,
This isn't quite the same company. They've just been using the name for about 15 years.
Re: (Score:2)
stop projecting what's practical where they live on people that live in different areas
Only if you stop projecting what you find satisfactory on the rest of us.
why do people working from home even need to video conference
Because I want to see the person's face and see all the non-verbal clues from the person I'm talking to. Are they nodding in agreement, or smiling to indicate they got the joke? Many people don't want video on because they are actually texting during the meeting or doing something else other than listening.
There are also some desktop sharing tools that repaint the entire screen no matter what is changing on the screen. I know that
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> 10 mbps uploads are good enough
That's "up to".
If they advertise 10mbps then they'll only get 4-5 during peak hours and drop down to 0.5mbps intermittently. Is this your first time dealing with Telcos?
Re:10 mbps uploads are good enough (Score:4, Informative)
10 Mbps is about half of what you'd need to reliably upstream 4K. Given that infrastructure takes years, if not decades, to develop and roll out. It's not very forward thinking to assume that people won't have a practical use for streaming 4K as a vlogger, video conference, band practice, whatever.
I think the pandemic is showing us just how much the lines have become blurred between home and work life. And the sorts of internet activities that were relegated as commercial are already being done on a massive scale from residential addresses.
Of course there's no such thing as a free lunch. If ISPs all roll out improvements in last mile infrastructure they will have to recoup those costs through customer billing. (obviously they wouldn't accept a cut in profits, it's hardly worth mentioning THAT suggestion)
Re: (Score:3)
There's an argument to be made there, but while ATT is talking about their 100/10 vDSL (or "IPBB" nonsense they like to call it) they can't even maintain 6/.5 ADSL2 for most of their service areas.
Re: (Score:3)
Acknowledgement packets are delivered on upstream and their transmission time can seriously impact latency. If rate limiting is at the TA and DSLAM, then 10mb/s is ok. If rate limiting is at the switch, 1mbs is probably fine...
Except for video conferencing which includes distance learning. Then, 2mb/s up per student is pretty important. 512kb/s may work, but adaptive control protocols (like RTCP) can add hundreds of milliseconds to latency due to e
Re: (Score:2)
I just cut the cord with those bastards yesterday! Migrated to WoW. I had been a loyal customer of theirs for over 40 years! No kidding, had them for POTS service since the late 1980s.
In all that time, I saw my broadband speed stay the same, 2nd from lowest tier they offered, 25 MB/s up and 5 MB/s down was adequate, and home POTS VoIP replacement ("land line" phone) and cable-type video 400, which was U-Verse TV, 2nd from the highest tier offered - most of the extras but only Showtime, no HBO or Cinemax
Re:Not needed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure about all phone companies, but I know that Windstream started rolling out a lot more fiber about 5 years ago. I'm somewhat rural (8 miles to nearest stop light) and right on the edge of DSL service for the big grey box I plug into down the road, but the fiber (admittedly for a different exchange than what I'm connected to) runs right past my house.
I was given a 30w solar panel for a "gag" gift this holiday season... anyone here in the N Florida area that could maybe do some midnight networking wit
Take the money from rich urban people (Score:3)
And you can't ignore the rural areas because our government grants them 10-40 times more voting power than urban voters. Thanks to how Congress and State Legislatures are organized they get many times more representation than urban voters. So you ignore them at your peril. Bet
Re: (Score:3)
The US spent huge amounts of money subsiding people who choose to live in rural areas with money taken from often poor urban people.
That's really debatable, but not actually the issue in any case. It's about people willing to pay for better service, but it isn't being offered because the monopolies can make more money by concentrating on the huge population areas. With only barely adequate service in even those locations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, we're laying mass fiber across the ocean without problems or thinking about it being "Just too expensive".
If anything, it should be cheaper to run fiber in the US than places like Japan or South Korea.
Re: (Score:2)
I realize you didn't mean it this way. That is, however, the implicat
Re: (Score:2)