The Next Big Fiber Showdown: Austin

Nerval's Lobster writes "Google might have big plans to wire America with high-speed broadband, but at least one carrier isn't willing to let Google Fiber have a free run: AT&T has announced that it will deploy a '100 percent fiber' network in Austin, Texas, capable of delivering speeds of up to 1GB per second. That location is auspicious, given how Google's already decided to make Austin the next city to receive Google Fiber. Whereas Google plans on connecting Austin households to its network in mid-2014, however, AT&T promises to start deploying its own high-speed solution in December. But there's a few significant catches. First, AT&T's service will initially roll out to 'tens of thousands of customer locations throughout Austin' (according to a press release), which is a mere fraction of the city's 842,592 residents; second, AT&T has offered no roadmap for expanding beyond that initial base; and third, despite promises that the service will roll out in December, the carrier has yet to choose the initial neighborhoods for its expansion. Could this be a case of a carrier freaking out about a new company's potential to disrupt its longtime business?"

300Mbps for $?$?$

[Sponge Bath]

Initial speed will be 300Mbps, of unknown cost, probably with the current 250GB monthly cap, available in few unspecified areas... oh boy.

Re:300Mbps for $?$?$

[Sponge Bath]

I forgot the link showing the initial rollout [theverge.com] will only be 300Mbps.

Re:competition

[Xicor]

att wont be able to compete. google is charging the same price for gb internet as att charges everyone for 20mbit. rolling out fiber and then charging 100$ more wont do anything to compete with google. that being said, maybe eventually att will wisen up and start offering fiber in other cities at a competitive rate (before google gets there), but i doubt that seriously, since att milks their customers for money.

Re:competition

[BoRegardless]

Free market competition in almost all cases, except for absolutely needed government actions, always results in intense competition and ultimately the lowest cost that a good provider can supply and maintain. Government has no interest in providing the best at the lowest cost if they run a service.

Any time the government gets involved they warp the competition one way or another with politcal ends and increase the overhead cost. Cable TV should have always been open to multiple providers so people could order what they want from whatever carrier or carriers.

Re:competition

[Anonymous Coward]

Having multiple sets of fiber maintained is more expensive than a single set though. I know trash service provided by private companies is far less efficient, much more labor and much more fuel as trucks from multiple companies travel down the same road. If government laid the fiber and treated like a roadway (covering just the last mile) it'd have less cost than google and AT&T competing, then they could compete on the other many miles, with many other companies, because now right-of-ways aren't an issue.

Natural monopoly

[Strange Attractor]

Digging duplicate trenches to lay parallel fiber is wasteful. That's why utilities are "natural monopolies". Getting economic efficiency in such situations usually requires regulation or community ownership.

Re:competition

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck homeowners' associations and the paper they're written on. You have got to be a fool to join one and have your property rights restricted.

I love where I live - the neighbors and I set off fireworks all the time, I can shoot an AR-15 or shotgun (not an "AR-15 shotgun" BTW) in my backyard without anyone blinking an eye or freaking out with a "ZOMG TER'RIST!" phone call to the police. I have one nutcase neighbor who sets bonfire CONSTANTLY, and his yard has gone to shit, but you know what? It's his property to do with as he pleases, and it's that sort of lack of nannystatism that drew me to NH.

As I understand it one newcomer called on another neighbor for exactly that. The police apparently said "So? It's their backyard and it's their constitutional right, unless they're shooting you." That took place before I moved to the neighborhood so it's just hearsay, but I do believe it because when Massholes move up here they often bring their moonbat baggage with them and try to force it on us. GTFO! Go back to Moonbatachusetts if you want a nanny state, pussy!

Anyway, FUCK homeowner associations. Anyone who joins one deserves what they get when the HOA decides satellite dishes are bad, your American flag is offensive, HAM antennae are bad, you parked your sportscar in the driveway, you own "too many cars" or you simply painted the house the wrong shade of grey or green, or no, you cannot install a pool because your irresponsible asshole neighbor fears his kid might hop your fence, trespass and drown in the pool (which IMHO would be a service to humanity). A fool who willingly cedes his rights deserves everything bad he reaps from it down the road.

Re:I'll see your HERP and raise you DERP.

[sneakyimp]

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 [wikipedia.org] was written by a Congress with a Republican majority in both Senate and House (the first time since the 50s this had happened). Blaming Clinton for it is pretty weak. It reminds me of blaming a certain other POTUS for a certain government shutdown that happened because Congress passed a law and then wanted to un-pass it.

Re:Why

[charlesnw]

No they don't require you to get cable with the internet service. Not in Austin anyway. It's cheaper to get cable+internet, that might be what you are referring to? Please don't spread misinformation, that's really not helpful. We need to have informed arguments with facts about the various carriers.