The Next Big Fiber Showdown: Austin 230
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?"
competition (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny what a little competition can do. Now if only this stuff could happen in other areas.
Re:competition (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
They're also willing to tangle-ass with the big-boys over some philosophical point that makes no or little bussiness sense, like "We're not Evil(tm), see we're bringing fiber to the unserved masses".
Re: (Score:2)
Prices will of course shoot back up once the competitor leaves or goes under.
So, AT&T just has to wait for Google to go under. They have nothing to worry about.
Reminds me of an old joke:
The greatest military genius of all time was Emperor Alexander I. He allowed his forces to retreat when Napoleon invaded, letting the enemy deep into his land. Then, he waited for the snows of winter.
The second greatest military genius was Stalin. He allowed his forces to retreat when Hitler invaded, letting the enemy deep into his land. Then, he waited for the snows of winter.
The third greatest military genius was Nassar. He allowed his forces to retreat when the Israelis inv
Re: (Score:2)
Reminds me of "Winter is coming". OT, I know, but I think the unpredictability of winter is probably the most interesting thing about the Game of Thrones series.
Anyways, while I'm at it, great sig quote ;-)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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 o
Re:competition (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I know I for one have never seen a private company fuck up and redo their work.
I wasn't trying to claim (I am GP) that government is more efficient though, simply that there are cases where the inefficiency of government doesn't outweigh the cost of having competition.
Re: (Score:2)
If you saw that in the US, (you did miss saying you "saw" a government rip up the road) you saw a private contractor doing it, almost certainly.
You did not see "government" employees doing it. Prove I'm wrong. I'll wait.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Patently and demonstrably false.
For example, where electrical service is provided by a public utility district, rates are almost always lower and the service almost always better (more reliable). The reason for this is simple - the PUD operates at the pleasure of the voters who elect it's board of directors, not at the pleasure of share-holders. The same would apply to broadband service, You are right though, that cable TV should have been open to whatever carrier wanted to play. Same goes for broadband.
Re: (Score:2)
I live in Austin, where we have municipal run electric utility, Austin Energy, which is one of the cheapest in Texas. In addition, the profits (which are over $100 million a year) go to funding other city services and projects. There are certainly wasteful government-run organisations in the world, but not all government-run organisations are wasteful. Please take your faith-based and ideology-based opinions elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
So why do the few municipal ISPs that manage to survive against state legislatures being bought by corporate interests and the inevitable lawsuits from those same corporations then end up providing several times the service for a lower price?
As for cable, they now have Dish and DirecTV and U-Verse to contend with and yet the prices haven't fallen and bundling is still the norm.
In theory, in a market consisting of individuals and a multitude of businesses not much bigger than the individuals, the market work
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Then please explain all the monopolies that had to be broken up in oil, rail, steel, meat packing, telephones, shipping, sugar, tobacco, grain elevators, and a bunch of other stuff I don't recall off the top of my head.
All of those monopolies were created during the freest of free market times in American history.
Government has no interest in providing the best at the lowest cost if they run a service.
Yea, the postal service and federal parks suck.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as the build out of bandwidth , there is much more going on there than
Re:competition (Score:4, Insightful)
Natural monopoly (Score:3, Informative)
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.
And who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
In the magical land of the oompa-loompas, where Willie Wonka is a benevolent dictator and everything is done for the betterment of their society, this would be important.
Any real issue has arguments both for and against. It's like a mathematical function with many variables, and you have to choose the combination of variables that gives the function the highest value.
In this case the highest value is utility for society, and the variables are the amount of weight you assign to each argument.
Specifically in this case, we assign little weight to "being wasteful because we're digging two trenches" because even though that argument is valid, the utility to society is much lower if we let that consideration drive our choice.
Yeah, I'd *like* to not have to waste effort to have good things, but that's not the world we live in.
Having fiber is more valuable than the expense of digging an extra trench.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just wasteful, it's generally subsidized by the community (ie. traffic delays).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Having fiber is more valuable than the expense of digging an extra trench.
But the natural monopoly is keeping that from happening, especially when those trenches cross both public and private property. Want to build your $1bil network? My land is in your way? Pay me $100k or your network won't get built.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you one of the extreme libertarians that think all road systems should be privatized, and we should have 3 highways to everywhere with competing tolls (which would inevitably be higher than the tax cost of building one highway)? Because if you aren't, I don't see how you think the corollary for internet access is preferable.
Re:And who cares? (Score:4, Interesting)
> Fiber has zero value as a "utility for society".
Bullshit. The value of fiber isn't just the value it brings to people willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars per month for an OC-12 today, it's the value it brings to people who'll find cool ways to enjoy having the equivalent of an OC-12 for slightly more than they're paying for shit DSL or cable today, amortized over the next 25-100 years (since buried fiber is basically a 50-100+ year capital investment).
If the federal government had any common sense, it would be taking advantage of its ability to borrow money at near-zero interest rates and making low-interest loans available to finance laying open-access fiber across America like there's no tomorrow. AT&T won't spend $10,000 laying fiber to a customer, because any horizon more than 5 years away represents too much capital risk, few customers could afford to cough up $10,000 (or even pay it off over some short period like 5 years that's a fraction of its useful life), and AT&T won't voluntarily share a fiber with anyone, because it likes keeping customers locked in. Even if the government burned $20,000 laying the same fiber and passed along the cost, it could be financed over 50 years for less than $60/month, interest included. And with inflation, by the time those last 10 years arrived, $60/month would seem as silly as a 12c/month luxury surtax on telephone service to finance the Spanish-American War.
Re: (Score:2)
It works for electricity and methane because new electricity or natural gas technology and major standards changes ever require upgrades; they just need to replace pipelines and cables as they rot or snap, and are relatively low maintenance and remarkably reliable, all things considered. The same is not true of telecommunications.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not competition. Likely, AT&T is just doing a token deployment to either justify some attempt to bribe their way into a local monopoly or some sort of legal challenge. AT&T, like most broadband ISP's, isn't interested in competition. They just want to grab the monopoly before someone else does.
Re: (Score:2)
Please, any paid AT&T folks in PR who are reading this, pass this along. Don't just pamper the Austinites. Give us some love everywhere else too!
Re: (Score:2)
Funny what a little competition can do...
Which is to say, "not very damned much". Please... Rolling out fiber to the home for a tiny percentage of the customers in a small market like Austin is hardly a game changer when it comes to the mythical free market for broadband providers. Then there's the peering arrangements. Here's betting that AT&T will be far from "neutral" when providing bandwidth to connections outside of their own ring. This is little more than a PR stunt, or perhaps an experiment to see "what the market will bear".
Re: (Score:2)
Get a half decent internet connection to 1% or so of a single city!
Re:competition (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll see your HERP and raise you DERP. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Check your telephone / internet bills people:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_service_fund [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
OT: My last long distance bill (Score:2)
My last bill had long distance calls: 2 minutes - charge $.08
What would you guess the total charge for 8 cents of services would be? $3.61
$3.53 for Federal Universal Service Fund, Fed Telecom Relay Service, Federal Regulatory Recovery, Property Tax Recovery, and Interstate Services Fee.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:competition (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's also similar to deregulated energy markets where a monopoly manages the wires but generators and service providers are competitive on those wires.
-l
Re: (Score:2)
Re:competition (Score:4, Funny)
How much do I need to pay google just to SAY they're going to operate in my area, since that is apparently all it takes to advance beyond circa 2004 internet technology?
Re: (Score:2)
I should be so lucky as to have 2004-era technology. I'm in the heart of the Silicon Valley, and can't get anything faster than basic 1998-era ADSL. If the HOA would let me put up a fifty foot tower, I could probably point a parabolic Wi-Fi antenna towards the Apple or Google campus and get faster service.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I will never EVER purchase a house under an HOA. They sound like the ultimate in horror and misery that one can inflict upon oneself.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that, in some towns, the only way to get a house in a neighborhood than isn't in a demilitarized zone is to agree to a HOA. All the good land is snapped up by developers who insist on HOA's (because it's often a continuing revenue stream for them).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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 prop
Re: (Score:3)
I lived in NH, now I live in Austin city limits, where much of what you describe is illegal (shooting guns for example).
Anyway, my point is a lot of what you describe is great if everyone has 10+ acres. In my neighborhood, with houses 6" apart those kinds of things can get annoying. So everyone has to understand that and try to be good neighbors. That means bondfires blowing smoke into my house, or whatever are a bad idea. Like for example my neighbor with the rotting cars in the front yard. Everyone else o
Re: (Score:3)
VT > NH. Just keep away from the towns bordering NY and MA and you avoid all the yuppy pussies. No concealed carry permits necessary, class 3 transfers (any gun built up until 1986 including large machine guns such as the M60 and M2.). Plenty of freedoms in VT along with plenty of land.
Re: (Score:2)
I should be so lucky as to have 2004-era technology. I'm in the heart of the Silicon Valley, and can't get anything faster than basic 1998-era ADSL. If the HOA would let me put up a fifty foot tower, I could probably point a parabolic Wi-Fi antenna towards the Apple or Google campus and get faster service.
Are you in an area where you could get Fusion from Sonic.net [sonic.net]?
300Mbps for $?$?$ (Score:4, Informative)
Re:300Mbps for $?$?$ (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
300Mbit is something you can get with ordinary Docsis 3.0 (400/100Mbit), no need for fiber.
Re: (Score:2)
I am really curious what gigabit Internet means, in practice. At worst it could be like living on a 6-lane freeway that extends only the length of your driveway to a dirt road. Moreover the TOS restrictions against using it to run a "server" (whatever th
Re: (Score:2)
I am really curious what gigabit Internet means, in practice. At worst it could be like living on a 6-lane freeway that extends only the length of your driveway to a dirt road. Moreover the TOS restrictions against using it to run a "server" (whatever that means) really suck.
I have a 50/25 FiOS package. It usually tests at around 56Mbps down and 26Mbps up (Yeah, HIGHER than rated. I was shocked, but I ain't complaining!)
Well-seeded torrents are a blast. I can download an HD movie in five minutes flat. I downloaded two long (5 seasons or so) TV series and two movies yesterday in about four hours. Fantastic. Linux ISOs from decent mirrors aren't a ton better than a solid cable/DSL connection, downloaded a Debian image yesterday, I think it was 1.3GB, took around 20 minutes. YouTu
Re: (Score:2)
How fast is your email? I keed, I keed.
I hate those comparison graphics where email is listed as a service for measuring speed. Uhhhhh
-l
Re: (Score:2)
300 Mbps isn't dogmeat! You "only" need 20-45 Mbps to stream 4k video.
And there's *so much* 4k video available, :rolleyes:
Re: (Score:2)
I'm even hopeful that something like OnLive (i.e. playing games rendered remotely) might become finally feasible.
Re: (Score:2)
20 Mbps 4K with H.264 encoding may have a resolution of 3840x2160 pixels, but it will not have 3840x2160 pixels worth of detail, unless nothing is moving on the screen.
I can honestly tell you that the best live H.264 encoders in the world right now need 100 Mbps to deliver 3840x2160 60p content that looks good.
24p movies get equivalent quality at 10-20% cut in bandwidth, but it is going to take HEVC to achieve good 4K in 40-50 Mbps.
Of course that won't stop anyone from watching really crappy quality 4K movi
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, 100 Mbit is still less than 300 Mbit, and Internet streaming is surely able to be upgraded to new encodings more easily than cable or satellite broadcasts, for example even if only a few people have new sets that support the encoding.
Re: (Score:2)
Why (Score:5, Funny)
CEO: "Gentlemen, google's competitive service challenges our freedom, our very way of life, our absurd profits. No longer will we be able to abuse customers and laugh as they threaten to leave us for better competitors, because there WILL BE a better option"
All: "GASP!"
CEO: "We have only one option. Stop them in Austin Texas. Throw everything we've got there. Be better than google."
Member of the audience: "But Sir, how can we keep getting monopoly-level profits for doing very little if we do that?"
CEO : (closes eyes) "We... can't."
All: "NNOOOO!!"
CEO: "But fear not! If we stop them in Austin Texas, they will give up expanding elsewhere!
All: "AMAZING!!!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I say the party now most threatened by high-speed fixed infrastructure is Comcast, not AT&T.
Actually, it's Time Warner in Austin...which is far, FAR worse than Comcast, sadly.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Anecdotally:
Having experienced both, I've concluded the following:
Time Warner is worse with the technology. Slower speeds, crappier equipment, tends to oversell bandwidth more. You'll hate them for their product.
Comcast sucks more on the business side. Billing, technical support, etc. You'll hate them for their people.
So long as your equipment and connection is good, Comcast is the way to go. Woe unto you should something go wrong, though. You'll call up Comcast and not only won't the problem be fixed, they
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, Comcast were the ONLY ones who made sense when it came to throttling, they basically said during congestion the highest n% of users would get throttled to maintain QoS, if there was no congestion on the headend then no throttling and once a certain percentage of users on a headend were in the throttled category they would reconfigure the headend and backhauls to alleviate the congestion (basically use smaller segments so each user gets a bigger percentage of the total pipes capacity). This is how a rea
Re: (Score:2)
What is AT&T's plan here?
I bet they're just trying to make a grab for the Austin monopoly before Google gets it. Then once they get it, it will be the same old shitty AT&T service they offer everywhere, with just a few token fiber deployments in a few neighborhoods. Austin gets screwed out of Google Fiber, a few city councilmen walk away with nice bribes, and the consumer gets fucked.
Sounds like Project PRONTO all over again. (Score:2)
Remember that disaster in a can? This was during the Big Deal when DSL was the trend maker. The problem with DSL or any ISP service over telecom copper needs to be operating at or on spec. Most of the locations where Pronto was slated to roll out on had crap copper. So guess where the money went? Almost all of it got sunk into infrastructure improvement and service roll out to high income, high density areas, leaving the blue collars and rural folks high and dry.
Take a guess where the FTH is going to be ro
Re: (Score:2)
They haven't decided because Google hasn't... (Score:5, Interesting)
They haven't decided where to install because Google hasn't. It will be predatory installation. That means they will install the system only where Google does and will only offer competitive prices to those who can get Google service. They do this to anyone that tries to overbuild.
As planned? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The other interesting thing here is that, at least in my city, there is a "comparable performance clause" in the agreement between the city and AT&T/Time Warner for the Phone/Cable monopoly.
It basically states that if another area gets quantifiable better speeds/options, they need to justify why it's economically infeasable to provide the same level of service in my community or they risk losing their license to a competitor who can. There are some limitations (like the deployment being in the same stat
As a long-time Austin resident... (Score:2)
I have a few observations to make.
1) "So what" that AT&T is only going to roll out this service to "tens of thousands of customer locations throughout Austin". Google is not promising to do anything more, with a plan to deploy it to select neighborhoods based on expressed interests from residents in those neighborhoods. The real question is whether AT&T tries to roll out AT&T fiber to the same neighborhoods or if they pick other neighborhoods. I would prefer the latter just so there's more high-
ARGH! (Score:2)
We do have Verizon FIOS out here in the metro area, but it's way the heck out west by Beavertron, presumably because of Intel. East of the Willy, the choices are Qwest (CenturyLink?) DSL which is slow as F, or Comcast, which is fast and reliable, but with a little more competition, I'm sure they could afford to drop the price by a few bucks.
Oh, and spe
Re: ARGH! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it'll be like Dallas (Score:4, Insightful)
But for their customers? Ha! This will be just more cobbled-together Uverse hybrid garbage.
I sortof doubt that AT&T will deliver (Score:2)
Will they have better TV bitrates and more streams (Score:2)
Will they have better TV bit rates and more streams in the same areas as well?
Good luck to them (Score:5, Interesting)
I really enjoyed calling up to cancel after Google connected our house.
"Why are you cancelling?"
"I found a better service."
"Can I ask what?"
"Sure, I found 1,0000 Mbps for $70/mo"
"Well. I can offer you 14Mbps for $40/mo"
They followed up with a letter just yesterday saying how they were surprised I canceled since they have such a great service and offering a $300 gift card for re-upping. As far as I can tell they have no strategy for dealing with competing fiber rollouts and Austin doesn't sound like one either.
Re:Good luck to them (Score:4, Insightful)
"Sure, I found 1,0000 Mbps for $70/mo"
"Well. I can offer you 14Mbps for $40/mo"
I suppose for a lot of (non-geek) people that might look like a compelling alternative, so it's not totally silly of the rep to offer it. However, I suspect that most of those who'd prefer 14 Mbps for $40 over 1000 Mbps for $70 would find 5 Mbps for $0 even more compelling.
die in a fire at&t (Score:4, Interesting)
FUD, Microsoft-Style (Score:2)
Also, this mealy-mouthed "up to 1Gb" sets off my bullshit meter, and leads me to suspect that AT&T are going to try and do this on the cheap. OTOH, GFiber starts at 1Gb, and there's plenty of upside built in to their backbone.
What I would be very careful of is the agreements AT&T manages to strong-arm out of Austin in "exchang
Makes no sense to me (Score:2)
4th. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whoosh! (Score:2)
You'll be at a fair fraction of 1Gb, not 1GB.
GPs point.
>
Your head.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
30Mbits per mux = 5-8 TV channels
you can have 160 TV streams on 1Gbit, thats a lot more than your "4 or 5"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
that is normal TV with a mix of SD and HD
one DVB-T mux can handle ~5 HD channels or up to 8-10 SD ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Netflix or hulu streaming on a couple TVs, Xbox Live, tablet and a couple android cellphones playing games and checking facebook, a pc, a laptop, fairly normal in my busy household all on 50mbps. {5 out of 8 devices are usually doing something} Sure sometimes I think I should upgrade to 100mbps since it is now available but I haven't had enough problems w/bandwidth to make me spend that extra $$.
Re: (Score:2)
Diabolically genius!
Wire the most affluent neighborhoods (a few 10s of thousands) from which Google would getting the greatest profit margins in terms of profile building and actual fiber revenue, spoil the proposition for the entire city.
OTOH, the more affluent areas also require more plant -- fiber and other hardware needed on a per-foot basis -- per user. Not that I've worked out what it costs or have a handle on revenue per user vs. household AGI -- any guess there would be PIDOOMA . . . I do know that google started their buildout in KC in denser, more urban areas. But among those areas, they only hooked up neighborhoods where a certain percentage of residents put down a deposit -- $300 payable in installments.
ATT has supposedly been "u
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And the 250GB month cap...
They have been coming to my house (in Austin) since the uverse upgrade a couple years ago. I asked them "can i have it without TV" and the answer was no. Now its possible, but TW is giving me 30/5 for less than their 20/1 service.
A rather cute little girl knocked on my door the other day, but as soon as I saw the AT&T shirt, I told her I wasn't interested, when she was persistent I basically told her where to put it and closed the door in her face.
Anyway, it took TW 5 years to
Re: (Score:3)
Why does Austin have monopoly rules? I thought Texas was the land of the free market? My little piece of Democrat controlled Ohio has two cable companies, u-verse, multiple DSL providers (if you haven't gone u-verse yet), two fixed wireless providers, and Clear wireless as broadband options. Not many of those options are over 20Mbps, but honestly there's not a hell of a lot of content out there requiring that kind of bandwidth at this time.
Re: (Score:2)