Palo Alto Will Make You Jealous Fiber-to-the-home trials to begin Is there an end in sight to the Telco/CLEC/Cable companies monopolistic hold over the "last mile"? Maybe, at least for Palo Alto, CA residents. Palo Alto already has a $2 million, 15-mile fiber-optic ring which gets broadband within a mile of almost all residents. The next step is a FTTH trial. They'll have to pay $1,200 for fiber installation plus $45 a month for 10Mbps, or $2,400 plus $100 per month for 100Mbps, adding in ISP charges. InfoWorld has the story.
|
 | |  Next to the GHETTO!
Of course Palo Alto CA.
It is THE MOST expensive place to live in Ca.
Even more than Hollywood.
Average house is a few million dollars.
But get this! When you drive over highway 101 into East Palo Alto it turns into the Ghetto!
When I first showed my wife Palo Alto she thought ist was really nice. I then told her to lock the doors and get ready for a shocker!
I drove over the highway to EPA (East Palo Alto) Within a few hundred feet of a million dollar house (just over the overpass, GhettoVille')
Within 1 block we saw where someone had broken a window on some building. Another block down was the guy who did it. He was face down on the ground with a cops shotgun pointed directly at the back of his head.
I turned down a side street to turn around and get out of dodge. I stopped half way down the street to make a u-turn. About 10 drug dealers walked up to our car trying to sell us drugs. I will take the fiber but the can keep the Ghetto!
That is if the fiber doesn't get stolen within a month or so
It is still the 3rd on FBI's Crime List.
»www.stanford.edu/class/comm217/p···ats.html
»www.stanfordalumni.org/news/maga···epa.html
»www.pcvp.org/pcvp/media/article4.shtml
»www.romic.com/epahistory/today.htm | |
|  | | | Re: Next to the GHETTO! lol that is so true
i had to accompany my dad to go to VA hospital up in palo alto....u look around and it's all nice, but hitting the EAST part of palo alto is a whole other story!!
sheesh....@_@ | |
|
ReneMH2
join:2001-11-27
Cockeysville, MD | Real Deal The real kicker is this part: $13.95 !!!!!!!
Sources say that this summer, which would be a lot sooner than eventually, Sierra Pacific (along with Hewlett-Packard and Oracle) will roll out FTTH Internet at 10Mbps for $13.95 per month -- way faster and way cheaper than CTMs and DSLs. | |
|  danc694uAnd Your Point Is?
join:2002-01-10
Moody, AL |  Cry Baby Telco!!
What goes around, comes around. All the "monopoly" folks should take a long hard look at this. The general internet community will grow, and speeds will increase. With or without their (local Telco) help.
Get on board now! Or get out of our way. 2 thumbs up for Palo Alto
--
Don't run!! You'll only die tired! Barret 50 cal. = Long Distance, the next best thing to being there. | |
|  ParalyticEverything Hurts.
join:2001-11-12
Seattle, WA | Jealous? Not really. Until the stranglehold on copyrights is lifted and VOD becomes reality, I can't see the value for the average user. Add to those figures listed the costs imposed by broadcasters, who have to pay off the content distributors, who are supposed to be paying artists, and the value per dollar isn't that great. If you're running servers, this is great news, but that's a big chunk of change just to have advertising dumped on you at 100Mbps.
I am very interested in how this develops. The bottom line has yet to be written: Is this fiscally viable?
--
If you can't laugh at yourself, I'll laugh at you. | |
| | | | Re: Jealous? Not really. ha, even the "ghetto homes" in silicon valley cost half a mil. (ok $400k due to market downturn) and we still cant get dsl or cable. project pronto?! and @home had scheduled back in 2001 to enter our neighborhoods by 2003... but then they went bankrupt | |
| | | | | Re: Jealous? Not really. No Doubt!
Silicon valley overall has to be the WORST place to get broadband. One would think it would not be the case at all. | |
|
| | Already here in VA Broadlands South (new area being developed in the community I live in) had fiber to the home. OpenBand does it. Several communites near here have it also. I think Brambleton has it, they are right near me.
»www.brambleton.com
»www.openband.net
Dirk | |
| | | | Too Expensive!!! | |
| | | | Re: Too Expensive!!! You didn't hear?
Only rich people can use the internet.
Powell said so! | |
| | | | OpenBand here does it all for you: voice, tv, internet, etc all in one package. I'd buy it in a heartbeat! | |
| |
| Huh!
Are you saying COX is good?
You are sarcastic, aren't you?
[text was edited by author 2002-02-21 14:58:37] | |
|
 BrendanWarr Guitar is here
join:2000-07-14
Littleton, CO | Well, good for Palo Alto Oh well, it has to be better than WideOpenWest, who is apparently dropping franchise cities. Check the site, under "service availability". Most of the Colorado communities listed aren't there anymore, except Denver, of course. I saw a thing on Silicon Spin about FTTH, and Dvorak tore it down, saying, "This won't become a widespread reality for decades." He's right.
--
"Know any good jokes? We're working again."- Adrian Belew of King Crimson, during the 1984 tour in Montreal, Canada.
*Pleased In Colorado* | |
|  virteRabid Wombat
join:1999-11-18
Roanoke, VA | And the beat goes on.... Palo Alto citizens have been waiting for access to the local fiber loop for years. Their connectivity has been mired in political debates (PA City Council), technical holy wars (FTTHome vs. FTTCurb), and telco shenanigans (complaints, threats, and bribes). It's a like a prime-time soap opera - with a rich city whose glamorous citizens struggle with each other for power and position - and there is even, literally, a "wrong side of the tracks" class struggle.
The Palo Alto FTTH issue hasn't been the paradigm of neighborly co-operation. There is very little altruism in this exercise. Whether it's getting limelight, proving that their idea is better than someone else's, being a politician that gets re-elected, an telco that gets something for nothing, or even a resident that thinks he/she "deserves" 100 Mbps as if it is some sort of birthright - most of the people involved have their own personal agenda.
What's wrong with a personal agenda? Nothing - unless you're cloaking it in a Fiber-To-The-People attitude. Why not just tell it like it is, pick a delivery method that makes sense technically and economically, get a couple or three ISPs to maintain connectivity, and get on with it already? The fiber has been in the ground for almost five years pretty much just sitting dark.
So why am I so anxious about this? Because time's-a-wastin', man. There needs to be a high profile example that a locally provided broadband solution can be a successful alternative to telco mediocrity and indifference. It needs to happen soon because we have legislation and decision making going on in the U.S. government that could hand the keys to the candy store to the telcos. That's the real agenda.
So, Palo Alto, get off you high horse and get your hands dirty before it's too late.
»www.cpau.com/fth/
»www.pafiber.net/ | |
| | | | Re: And the beat goes on.... said by virte:
The Palo Alto FTTH issue hasn't been the paradigm of neighborly co-operation. There is very little altruism in this exercise. Whether it's getting limelight, proving that their idea is better than someone else's....or even a resident that thinks he/she "deserves" 100 Mbps as if it is some sort of birthright - most of the people involved have their own personal agenda.
Hey, it sounds to me like you just described 75 percent of the people who post to DSL Reports--regardless of the topic! | |
| | | virteRabid Wombat
join:1999-11-18
Roanoke, VA
| Re: And the beat goes on.... *shrug*
I suppose. I don't read each and every post but I think I know what you mean. However, we must keep in mind that there is a big difference between casual end-users, so-called "power" users, and folks that legitimately require a high-speed Internet connection.
Each of these groups and the people in them have their own agendas and ideas on what the Internet should be. As such, passions run from indifference to nit-picking obsessiveness. It all depends on the person and their expectations.
Given the debacle that is the broadband Internet market of the last two years, I am not surprised that there are people on DSLR with a chip on their shoulder and an attitude as big as Global Crossing's debts. The interesting thing about many broadband Internet consumers is that they seem to take all the bankruptcies, change-overs, and cut-off's personally - as if the industry is sticking it to each of them on purpose. When we hear of layoffs, Chapter 11 filings, dirty dealings, flagrant and gross misconduct, incompetent management on a daily basis and when all of that strikes at the very heart of the American economy it's difficult to avoid the feeling that crooks are ripping us off. Coming from that perspective you can bet your butt people are going to be angry and spitting venom.
DSLR is a perfect place for complaining because there are so many people who have been through the same things. Misery loves company.
The people involved with the Palo Alto FTTH/FTTC issue are not all jerks. It only seems that way because some of those that are jerks tend to be very vocal. Palo Alto is, as others have pointed out, a very nice little city - I should know, I used to work there and I was born in the Bay Area. However, I tend to get very frustrated when a community effort that has a very good idea behind it gets all fouled up by...well, assholes. There is no other way to say it that can express how I feel. The Palo Alto fiber project could have and should have been researched and rolled out by now. Committees, Palo Alto's in particular, suck. Why? Because it's a bunch of smart people who become stupid when put into the same room together.
I reserve my anger and vitriol for the assholes of the world.
[I edited this for grammar and content - virtee]
[text was edited by author 2002-02-23 16:25:01] | |
|
| I like this a lot, but ... I could handle the $1200 installation charge (what does this cover, anyway?), and the $45 is nothing I can't handle either. All this for 10Mbps? Ok, is this symmetric or asymmetric? LOL, its probably 10Mbps down and 256Kbps up!! This is what I would call the fiber version of one-way cable.
How about ISP charges? Can I run DNS, NNTP, SMTP/POP, and HTTP? And most of this means nothing if the ISP thats between mean and the internet cannot be robust enough to give me more than 1Mbps steady-stream and only 10Mbps in brief, sporadic spikes.
Either way, why can't this be done elsewhere? Sure, homes there are expensive, but unless property taxes are paying for it all ...
--
With mistakes like me its any wonder anything gets fixed!
[text was edited by author 2002-02-21 15:47:18] | |
| | Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Optimum Online
·EarthLink
| Re: I like this a lot, but ... said by ImFixingIt:
I could handle the $1200 installation charge (what does this cover, anyway?), and the $45 is nothing I can't handle either. All this for 10Mbps?
Out here on the East Coast, we get 10Mbps down / 1Mbps up cable for $34 per month with no installation fee. So why bother with fiber?
--
Without software, life itself would be impossible.
Optimum Online; $29.95 per month; average speed 7500/925 kbps | |
| | | | | Re: I like this a lot, but ... New technologies could make VERY good use of this fiber (confrencing, etc), but not so good use of cable internet. Besides, cable internet service gets laggy at busy hour. | |
|
| | | Well, not everyone is on the east coast.. Haven't you noticed? People that develop of lot of things are in Silicon Valley and not Sherwood Forest. Also, unless the topology of the cable system is setup right, there can be huge latencies and low bandwidth like all other forms of broadband.
BTW, how do you think your beloved cablemodem service 'reaches' the Internet? Now go do some research and realize the naivety of your comments. And judging by the instability of the cable operators compared to your incumbent LECs and other providers, you might think about how much longer it may be around.
Not everyone lives next door to you, which is a good thing.
--
With mistakes like me its any wonder anything gets fixed! | |
| | | | | Re: I like this a lot, but ... Don't be a dick by calling him naive. He was simply stating that where he is he can get blazing speeds for much cheaper. And by "we" i'm guessing he meant his neighbors and not EVERYONE on the east coast. If he was that stupid he wouldn't have cable now. So save your flaming for the real morons..... | |
| | | | | | Re: I like this a lot, but ... said by CitizenX:
Don't be a dick by calling him naive. He was simply stating that where he is he can get blazing speeds for much cheaper. And by "we" i'm guessing he meant his neighbors and not EVERYONE on the east coast. If he was that stupid he wouldn't have cable now. So save your flaming for the real morons.....
He was naive in his comments about his cable not being dependent upon fiber, when in fact it was. Ok, I take back any comment about Bobcat being naive, and instead suggest he was ignorant. That's not a bad word, but an accurate one.
--
With mistakes like me its any wonder anything gets fixed! | |
| | | | | Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·Optimum Online
·EarthLink
| Re: I like this a lot, but ... I said the same thing three times, and you still don't understand. Do you have a comprehension problem? The article was about fiber to the residences. My comments were about cable vs fiber to the residences. I never said anything about cable not being dependent on fiber! Got it now???
--
Without software, life itself would be impossible.
Optimum Online; $29.95 per month; average speed 7500/925 kbps | |
| | | | | | | | Re: I like this a lot, but ... I know quite well what you said, Bobcat. "Out here on the East Coast, we get 10Mbps down / 1Mbps up cable for $34 per month with no installation fee. So why bother with fiber?"
Well, the last time I checked using two type of infrastructure were typically more expensive than one. I am glad to hear that you are firmly aware of that cable, even your cable, is dependent upon fiber. So, lemme see. If I remember correctly, the relative bandwidth of cablemodems is in the neighborhood of 30Mbps of shared bandwidth (no, not talking about sharing in terms of his neighbors).
Fiber, most notably SMF in the ground is a lot more and can easily handle greater amounts for additional services. Hey, that must be why so many of the cable providers near me, also on the East Coast, are replacing large chunks of the neighborhood facilities with fiber. Go figure.
As for CitizenX and DamnDave, byte me. I'll take my fiber any and every day over cablemodems. And I think my fiber will be around a lot longer than Bob's cable service--provided it isn't upgraded to fiber.
BTW, I am not knocking cable technology. It was good for data and may still be for some, like Bob, but there are those that felt differently, like myself and EPA.
--
With mistakes like me its any wonder anything gets fixed! | |
| | | | | | | Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·Optimum Online
·EarthLink
| Re: I like this a lot, but ... There's fiber all over my neighborhood. There's fiber 150 feet from my house. But the cable company thinks it's more cost effective to have nodes which convert from fiber to coax for every 200-500 homes than to run the fiber into every house.
The cable company's installation fee is $50 (for cable TV or Internet service). That's a lot cheaper than $1200. And my monthly fee is $29, which is a lot cheaper than the monthly fee for the fiber-based service.
So, fiber is more expensive for the same speeds. But if you want to spend an extra $1150 for installation and an extra $10 per month, go ahead. I'm not going to argue about it anymore.
--
Without software, life itself would be impossible.
Optimum Online; $29.95 per month; average speed 7500/925 kbps | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: I like this a lot, but ... said by Bobcat:
Just pointing-out that fast service at relatively low cost is possible via cable. You don't need a pie-in-the-sky fiber system to get 10Mbps. And, it seems, cable is a lot cheaper.
Bobcat, you really need to take a closer look at all cable-based systems that offer data services, such as the one you are on. It most certainly has a WAN element, and if there are sufficient numbers (more than 100 on your cable operator buying into that 10Mbps) then your long haul will indeed have a fiber component.
When it comes to connecting to the Internet, ALL systems have fiber elements on the long haul. Try to upstream-handle 10-100K subs each with 10Mbps with copper. Its not going to happen without a lot of class-action law suits when those PUC/PSC coming investigating as 45Mbps T-3 isn't going to cut the mustard.
Your little cablemodem and everyone else's modems in your neighborhood are topographically aggregated to your cable operator's upstream provider, and unless they extremely few end users (less than 1000) then they are most certainly using fiber.
How about this, why not post some traceroutes from your cablemodem to DSLR? We'll all have a nice look and see who your cable operator's upstream provider is and go from there. Ok?
--
With mistakes like me its any wonder anything gets fixed! | |
| | | | | Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·Optimum Online
·EarthLink
| Re: I like this a lot, but ... I think we're talking about two different things. My point is that for residential use, cable can provide adequate access, e.g., 10Mbps for $35/month. There's no need to run fiber when you already have coax running to every house.
Obviously, each cable node will be connected to the rest of the network by fiber.
--
Without software, life itself would be impossible.
Optimum Online; $29.95 per month; average speed 7500/925 kbps | |
|
| | | Bobcat is saying...why not just use the coax cable to the home since you can get 10mbps anyways instead of spending $1200 to have fiber run directly to residents. GET IT? He's not saying that cable service isn't dependent on a fiber optic back bone (LIKE 99.9% OF THE INTERNET IS). For the last time STOP PUTING WORDS IN HIS MOUTH JUST SO YOU CAN CORRECT HIM FOR SOMETHING HE NEVER SAID. | |
|
 DMenschaIt's Not Fixed, But We Have A Workaround
join:2001-07-19
<-nowhere-> | Palo Alto is OLD news I installed and repaired DSL for pacbell in the Palo Alto area for almost 2 years, The Fiber ring in PA is old news, except for the fact the buried it, and THEN went looking around for someone to connect to it. The big number is a "buy in" ala a cooperative the hook up is the last 100 feet thing and then the monthly is the cost of service.
There had been so few takers to the idea, that cable and DSL were the only game in town. The cable system was a cooperative venture (old and infirm btw)which was recently sold to ATT broadband.
As for the difference between PA and EPA, EPA is still a rough place, but it has made big strides in the last 5 years. I was sort of proud that SBC extended DSL to EPA before they ran it to Atherton (top 10 in income per capita in the US).
In case anyone had missed it, people tend to vote with their pocket books, which is why cable and DSL have done so well in Palo Alto. It's also why, when I moved out to the boondocks, i decided to not go with a satellite DSL connection with a $700 installation and $90 a month servcie to get half the speed I had in Menlo Park (right next door to PA)
--
Indecision may or may not be my problem | |
| |  g0nepostalI Am The One Her Mom Warned Her About
join:2001-03-23
Concord, CA
 ·magicjack.com
·Astound Broadband
·DSL EXTREME
| My two centavos Interesting how you say that East Palo Alto has made so many great strides. I drive by the place on Highway 101 every once in a while and see all the new stores that have opened up. Presumably the Home Depot and the Bed, Bath, and Beyond employ some of East Palo Alto's residents, but with the way the retail economy has gone down the tubes, that kind of "economic turnaround" is problematic at best. Even the rich types that live in Palo Alto and frequent those stores can't spend all the time.
Not that I mind, those folks on the other side of the University Avenue overpass need all the help they can get.
Now, about Palo Alto's fiber. $1,200 to set up is nothing to homeowners who for some crazy reason don't mind ponying up six or seven figures on a postage-stamp size piece of land with a nice house on it. Then $45-100 a month for massive bandwidth. I'd snap it up in a heartbeat if I were a Palo Alto moneyed yuppie.
Question is though, what would someone DO with all that capacity? Even the most hardcore video streams are currently encoded at 500Kpbs. Morpheus is great to get video and music with, but the quality is very hit or miss. And unless you're going to be running a server of some kind, there really isn't a need for 10 or 100Mbps of raw bandwidth, of which you'd probably get 85-90 Mbps after the Layer 1-4 overhead (I assume since it's fiber it is either FDDI or ATM).
If the city can make it work, more power to them. It would be nice to have a municipality (albeit, a very rich one, but that's how it always is) show Pacific Hell and AT&T Narrowband up.
Meantime, my poor butt will stay in Concord and keep using ATTBI. 
gp
[text was edited by author 2002-02-22 00:29:27] | |
|
| | Limitations... I guarantee you there are excessive limitations on what you can do with the fiber too. Probably no running web/FTP/game servers. It's most likely strictly downloading files and surfing the web. I bet they do frequent port scans too, making sure no one is in the warez business. Maybe I'm wrong but in other places with fiber, those are average restrictions. I'd rather keep my 1mbps/512kbps with total freedom than go 10/10mbit with digital handcuffs on. | |
|  mszv
join:2000-11-20
Hellertown, PA | Input from a Palo Alto person
As a person living in Palo Alto, I thought I'd respond, to the FFTH trial, and to other comments about Palo Alto.
--"Palo Alto is a land of snobbish, well-moneyed yuppies". Well, yes and no. Some parts of Palo Alto are more expensive than others, but it is an expensive city. Housing (both rents and house prices) is high, but there is a sizeable group of people who live here who aren't rich, you would be surprised. There are also people here who aren't home owners. It's a great city, and I love it, but I won't go into that - let me just say that there are plenty of people here who would not or could not pay $1000+ for broadband installation.
--The "Fiber-to-the-home" project is small in scope (my understanding), there's not a lot of participation. Most Palo Alto people get their broadband the regular way, through a collection of DSL providers, all or most (sadly) going through Pacbell, instead of Covad. Cable broadband was available with the old Palo Alto cable company (I think) but it's not available now. I would think the FFTH system would attract people who need their own servers, or better than well-off techies who want to be first at this kind of residential technology. I just don't see most of us Palo Altans going for it. It's also kind of a "single family detached home" thing, I don't think it's available to condo dwellers or apartment renters.
--"Broadband in Silicon Valley is bad". Yes, yes, and yes. You'd be surprised at the number of places in Silicon Valley where broadband (and by this I mean cable and dsl) is not available. Broadband cable has been incredibly slow to roll out (it's "coming") and I know lots of people who are too far from the CO to get DSL. Not to mention all the problems with DSL, just go read the old Earthlink and Pacbell threads for the San Francisco Bay area; you can see what I'm talking about. I really don't know why broadband is so awful here.
--East Palo Alto. East Palo Alto is it's own separate city, it's not part of Palo Alto, unlike the east Menlo Park area, which is a part of Menlo Park. East Palo Alto has gone through very hard times, but it's in a lot better shape now; the unaffordable housing market has improved the lot of some parts of Silicon Valley where housing was less expensive. There's some really nice neighborhoods in East Palo Alto, and I'm quite hopeful about the new retail stores. It's also nice to be so close to the baylands. Give the city a chance.
Regards, mszv | |
|  ztmikeMark for moderationPremium
join:2001-08-02
Michigan City, IN
|  rich peeps+fiber
[text was edited by author 2002-02-22 18:07:09] | |
| |  dasesq
join:2001-10-07
Long Beach, CA | Re: rich peeps+fiber Oh my god! Homes that cost 300,000 or more! Those must be the rich folks! | |
| | |  RR ConductorHappy 40th AmtrakPremium
join:2002-04-02
Redwood Valley, CA
kudos:1 | Re: rich peeps+fiber For most of the country, 300000 IS a rich area, I love California with all my heart, but it IS $$$$$ to live here  | |
|
| gshock7
join:2000-12-17
San Francisco, CA | I read the article in a newspaper. I believe those Palo Alto houses are more like $600,000+ instead of $300K. | |
| | RR ConductorHappy 40th AmtrakPremium
join:2002-04-02
Redwood Valley, CA
kudos:1 | 300k, 600k, it's all out of reach to most people. Just as an example, in my county of Mendocino, there are currently 15 homes over 1800 square feet for sale between Redwood Valley(my humble abode)and Hopland, and all of them are over 400k. Now the average salary in this area is somewhere around 25-30k a year, it's getting to be a crisis. High cost of living, bad economy, lack of good paying jobs(unless you want to commute to SF every day , and some people here do) | |
|
 emmpeethreeTwizzling FlagellaPremium
join:2001-04-13
Richmond, BC | if you want to... if you want to live in california, you deserve to have fiber
espescially right now, its tougher and dirtier then ever
=) | |
| | | ATT in San Jose NOw! check the community channel for further info! | |
|
| |
|
|
