| |
to existenz
Re: Really.. Its not that badMind trying a speed test to another area perhaps that is on a fiber backbone? |
|
 morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 |
to battleop
Re: But it's for Google...said by battleop:The problem is that most of them have a business model that's focused on running private business out of business. Under no circumstances should your local government have a goal of running private businesses out of business. Local government can and should step in to provide competitive services if incumbents refuse or charge exhorbitant prices. Competition is good even if its a muni system. |
|
4 edits |
to political_i
Re: Really.. Its not that badCan you tell me of one on coasts that can test a Gbit? Here's a site in Chatanooga (testing from KC), over 600 miles. I don't know if it is capable of doing full Gbit but still pretty good.... 
Here's another in KC to KC, over 800/900Mbps... 
|
|
3 edits |
to Ganthet
[att=3]
They basically ran larger boxes that are flush with ground on one side of the street then every 2 houses they run conduit under the street and place these smaller boxes. For the most part its been pretty clean in my area.
Not sure where these pictures were taken in KC though.
|
|
| onthecake |
to battleop
Re: I wonder..Getting google fiber is not required. If you want to keep your current carrier you can. I guess I am missing where google is getting $$ from the cities?
At most I have heard they are waving the permit fees or allowing them to do all required work using a blanket permit. Past that I was under the impression that all material and labor was coming out of their pocket and not the cities. |
|
 tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA |
to mhathaway
Re: Why can't they just do the right thingRoW's are generally very specific in size and location and any restrictions on usage. it isn't the crew being lazy if the engineer says "RIGHT HERE" |
|
| tshirt |
to verta
Re: Really.. Its not that badsaid by verta:and it's your responsibility to repaint it weekly at your cost or face code violation fines It's never your responsibility to repaint Telco equipment in the public RoW. Even though you are attempting to "beautify" YOU are technically tagging just as much as the kids. |
|
| |
to battleop
Re: But it's for Google...They do not have a goal of running private businesses out of business.
They have a goal of providing core services to their people that those private businesses have failed to do. Which is why they want to do it to begin with.
I agree with what Karlmarx said. The muni should own the infrastructure and the businesses that have no interest other than to collect money should be the ones providing the services over it for a fee. I also agree that they should not be treated as a person. |
|
| Skippy25 |
to battleop
Re: I wonder..Don't know and don't care. The incumbents, and every other company for that matter, had every opportunity to come to the city and make the exact same request as Google and yet they did not as they were satisfied with the status qua.
The fact that the city is willing to work with Google shows yet again the lacking on the incumbents part. If they did what they needed to do to keep the city/citizens happy Google more than likely wouldnt even be in talks with them, so screw them. |
|
| |
to onthecake
I didn't say anything about getting cash from the cities. I'm referring to the level of cooperation. |
|
| |
to political_i
If there is not a big bitch by the incumbents it is probably because they are only joining community institutions. Start reaching out to the homes and businesses and watch them flop on the floor kicking and screaming like a bunch of 2 year olds. |
|
| |
to Skippy25
Re: But it's for Google..."They do not have a goal of running private businesses out of business."
They most certainly do, but they are a private business and not the government so that's OK.
"They have a goal of providing core services to their people that those private businesses have failed to do. Which is why they want to do it to begin with."
Bullshit. They want faster connections to their end users so they can extract as much data as they can from those users to propel their advertising business. They are not doing this for the greater good this is just an investment in their profits. |
|
 F100
join:2013-01-15
Durham, NC
(Software) pfSense
Pace 5268AC
|
to existenz
Re: In other news, I just got Google Fiber today!Can you do the test to the speed test .net server in Washington DC? That is the only one that I can find that is fast enough that is not on a local network. I have to use that one to max out a desktop connection. This is on a 1Gbps connection to the 10Gbps core that has two active/active 10Gbps connections to the internet. I wonder how Google Fiber compares on this same server? |
|
| F100 |
to existenz
Re: Really.. Its not that badCan you do the test to the speed test .net server in Washington DC? That is the only one that I can find that is fast enough that is not on a local network. I have to use that one to max out a desktop connection. This is on a 1Gbps connection to the 10Gbps core that has two active/active 10Gbps connections to the internet. I wonder how Google Fiber compares on this same server? |
|
|
| |
to F100
Re: In other news, I just got Google Fiber today!KC to DC. Not bad for nearly 1000 miles. 
|
|
| |
to fg8578
Re: Oh the irony!MetroFI was NOT cable. It was the free wireless Internet company that got cities to give them millions. A main reason cities should not be in the internet business. |
|
| TBBroadband |
to tshirt
what gets me is they'll bed over backwords and change everything for someone like Google only to find out it's years down the road to even get the service- IF it at all happens in in 5-10years. Look at Austin- it's not started. KC isn't even half done. |
|
|
| TBBroadband |
to fg8578
Brand X was the case that ended up having cable modem services turned into an information service, not AT&T and the city of Portland. |
|
| |
to F100
Re: Really.. Its not that bad
See answer below in other thread.
|
|
| |
to battleop
Re: But it's for Google...Who are you referring to, munis or Google?
I addressed your previous message that appeared to be you calling Munis private businesses. |
|
tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA |
to TBBroadband
Re: Oh the irony!Google may "win" either way, worse consumers may actually lose.
IF they (Google) can fool enough of the other players into abandoning their own business plans too instead try and match Google's unproven broadband investment plan, Google will still reap the major data collection benefit even if not first hand.
In return the existing majors could become financially unstable long before they can complete a meaningful rollout leaving many unserved with little chance of new investment (Google pocket aren't deep enough to rescue every new iProvo clone)
Race to the bottom (line) "gas wars" often do MORE damage to consumers/the marketplace over the longterm, in return what is sometimes a very brief benefit.
"I want it NOW" consumers are just as bad as "next quarter return" investors. |
|
F100
join:2013-01-15
Durham, NC Alcatel-Lucent G-010G-A
(Software) pfSense
Pace 5268AC
|
to existenz
Re: Really.. Its not that badNot too bad for a GPON network. I'd take it in a heartbeat. Do wonder how it will compare to Active Ethernet once the service gets loaded up. Do you know if your fiberhood is on a 1:16 or 1:32 split?
This area is one of the 34 next possible locations but it's probably a long shot that we actually get picked. |
|
 fg8578
join:2009-04-26
San Antonio, TX
1 edit |
to TBBroadband
Re: Oh the irony!said by TBBroadband:Brand X was the case that ended up having cable modem services turned into an information service, not AT&T and the city of Portland. It was both, but Portland (2000) preceded Brand X (2003) by three years. The FCC Order that labeled cable modem service as an information service came out in 2002; it decided the Portland case (AT&T filed suit against Portland in 1999). The FCC Order came out a year before the initial Brand X case, which was a decision that overturned the FCC decision. The Supremes decided the Brand-X case in 2005, relying on the FCC decision as a precedent and affirming it. It was the Portland case that first teed up the issue, but yes, the Brand-X decision settled the question once and for all. |
|
 Duramax08To The Moon
Premium Member
join:2008-08-03
San Antonio, TX |
to onthecake
Re: Really.. Its not that badAnd all of this is done with one strand of fiber. Technology has come a long way. |
|
| |
to Skippy25
Re: But it's for Google...I was talking about Google. Many munis are operating like a private business which is wrong. |
|
2 edits |
to F100
Re: Really.. Its not that badI've heard it's an AE/WDM-PON hybrid. I was at a Google Fiber tech conference last Fall and a Gfiber net engineer told me that the network can sustain near 1Gbit to 80% user capacity within a fiberhood or something like that if I understood right. Given that very few would sustain high bandwidth concurrently, would be surprising if many would interfere with each other until maybe 4K streaming becomes common.
I'm in a condo hirise with nearly 150 units. Everyone got GFiber although many are using the 'free' 5Mbit. So the distribution of 5M users will keep load of the fiberhoods as well. |
|
| |
to existenz
Re: In other news, I just got Google Fiber today!I hate you.... not really. Congrats. |
|
Rekrul
join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT |
Rekrul
Member
2014-Apr-4 6:29 pm
Above ground?Can't they just bury them? Leave it exposed until they're sure everything is running smoothly, then cover it over with a inch or so of soil so that grass will grow. Maybe not as convenient as having it sit on top of the ground where it can be accessed at will, but really, how often do they need to go inside these things? |
|
| |
to biochemistry
Re: In other news, I just got Google Fiber today!Hate on this...  This is a test within GFiber network to test site directly on Gfiber somewhere in KC (not hopping routers to other service). Latency showed 0ms. GFiber TV was jittery while running this so this is probably most stress. I'm in a condo building with nearly 150 units all with GFiber and in a pretty dense neighborhood with other residential hirises and still getting this. 
BTW, the Gfiber TV is also awesome. No more TWC SDV compressed channels, high motion video has no pixelation. Google doesn't compress anything other than what original source from providers give them. Can't find anything I dislike yet.
|
|
| |
to Rekrul
Re: Above ground?Cost and regulations are probably the main two reasons. It costs less to go above versus below ground even though I would agree that underground in many cases should be more reliable than above ground. If regulations do not require underground utilities, unless the reliability is significantly improved, there is no reason. |
|
This is a test within GFiber network to test site directly on Gfiber somewhere in KC (not hopping routers to other service). Latency showed 0ms. GFiber TV was jittery while running this so this is probably most stress. I'm in a condo building with nearly 150 units all with GFiber and in a pretty dense neighborhood with other residential hirises and still getting this.