Jump to content
iansltx

Google Fiber in Austin...and AT&T's response

Recommended Posts

 

 

Isn't that far away?

 

Gigabit is 10 years away from being available in all the metropolitan areas.

 

Only a small portion of internet users have any NEED for internet speeds greater than 50mbps.

 

Of course in the future this will change.

The future is now, good sir. :) Do you suppose things like Project Loon, Fiber, Chromebook, etc aren't coordinating at Mountain View HQ? Big things are happening and the incumbent telcos and cable cos are no longer able to slow it.

 

Man will set foot on Mars inside 15 years; it's high time we stepped up our terrestrial game.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't that far away? 

 

Gigabit is 10 years away from being available in MOST all the metropolitan areas. 

 

Only a small portion of internet users have any NEED for internet speeds greater than 50mbps. 

 

Of course in the future this will change. 

 

The only reason gigabit is ten years away in a given metro is the competition isn't being pushed hard enough.

 

And honestly it probably won't take that long to get to gigabit on the high end, even in areas that don't have a huge amount of competition right now. Comcast now has 105M as a relatively inexpensive tier, 12x faster than they were five years ago (albeit at a higher price). Cablevision (NYC) has 101/35 coming out very soon. Cox offers 150/20. In five years we've gone from DOCSIS 1.1 or 2.0 to 3.0 and channel bonding in both directions in many cities, representing a capacity increase of 8-10x in many cases. 24x8 modems are coming out nowish so already you can hit 300 Mbps in real-world conditions (on the downstream side).

 

And the next big step is DOCSIS 3.1 so you aren't losing bandwidth to channel guard bands (out of 3.2 MHz on the upstream side, only 2.56 MHz is usable for data at this point, for example) left and right, plus some other enhancements that should boost spectral efficiency quite nicely (to the tune of 30%, the other biggie being 1024QAM). Combine this with plant improvements that push systems up into the 1200MHz capacity range, plus going completely digital, and you can hit gigabit on the downstream side without much of a problem.

 

Don't get me wrong. You If you're starting out a cable network at this point it's foolish to build coax instead of fiber. But the lack of FTTH in a given area doesn't doom that area to perpetual backwater-ness connectivity-wise. Business practices might though (ahem, TWC).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The future is now, good sir. :) Do you suppose things like Project Loon, Fiber, Chromebook, etc aren't coordinating at Mountain View HQ? Big things are happening and the incumbent telcos and cable cos are no longer able to slow it.

 

Man will set foot on Mars inside 15 years; it's high time we stepped up our terrestrial game.

Yes, the incumbent telcos & cable cos can do nothing to stop us now  ^_^

 

The only reason gigabit is ten years away in a given metro is the competition isn't being pushed hard enough.

 

And honestly it probably won't take that long to get to gigabit on the high end, even in areas that don't have a huge amount of competition right now. Comcast now has 105M as a relatively inexpensive tier, 12x faster than they were five years ago (albeit at a higher price). Cablevision (NYC) has 101/35 coming out very soon. Cox offers 150/20. In five years we've gone from DOCSIS 1.1 or 2.0 to 3.0 and channel bonding in both directions in many cities, representing a capacity increase of 8-10x in many cases. 24x8 modems are coming out nowish so already you can hit 300 Mbps in real-world conditions (on the downstream side).

 

And the next big step is DOCSIS 3.1 so you aren't losing bandwidth to channel guard bands (out of 3.2 MHz on the upstream side, only 2.56 MHz is usable for data at this point, for example) left and right, plus some other enhancements that should boost spectral efficiency quite nicely (to the tune of 30%, the other biggie being 1024QAM). Combine this with plant improvements that push systems up into the 1200MHz capacity range, plus going completely digital, and you can hit gigabit on the downstream side without much of a problem.

 

Don't get me wrong. You If you're starting out a cable network at this point it's foolish to build coax instead of fiber. But the lack of FTTH in a given area doesn't doom that area to perpetual backwater-ness connectivity-wise. Business practices might though (ahem, TWC

Yes, when consumer demand is strong the cable companies will begin sluggishly switching over to FTTH connections to the masses. Yes, there are cities with many cable companies and Fiber companies such as NYC you have mentioned. 

 

 

For cites like mine, residents have Cox cable or Windstream to chose from. Cox offers 60/5 in town for $85.00 per month. We lack the competition to motivate them to step up, A friend of mine recently switched to directTV and bundled with windstream  :wall:  with the 24mbps package windstream is unable to deliver more than 2mbps to her home.  For us, without an intervention we are unlikely to ever see an affordable fiber connection.  :alien:  :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The victim here in Austin is probably Grande Communications which has built out it's own DOCSIS 3.0 network and competed against TWC and AT&T for over a decade. I have great internet speed (30/3 for around $35/mo) and all cable packages come with a full TIVO box and not some shitcan TWC DVR. They offer speeds up to 110 down to residential customers and have pretty great customer service.

 

I hear TWC's response is that they plan to blanket public areas with superfast WIFI for TWC subscribers only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The victim here in Austin is probably Grande Communications which has built out it's own DOCSIS 3.0 network and competed against TWC and AT&T for over a decade. I have great internet speed (30/3 for around $35/mo) and all cable packages come with a full TIVO box and not some shitcan TWC DVR. They offer speeds up to 110 down to residential customers and have pretty great customer service.

 

I hear TWC's response is that they plan to blanket public areas with superfast WIFI for TWC subscribers only.

 

That would be interesting. Japan telcos gone mobile carriers have been doing this forever, like SoftBank.

 

Pretty sure this is Google's planned response to that: http://xkcd.com/1226/

 

Lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would cost a lot of money.  That is why Verizon stopped expanding in my state ran out of funds.  Last time I heard fiber was 3 or 4 something a foot.  I don't know how many pairs but lets say you have 200 foot run to your house.  Then inside fiber they need to run.  They do run fiber to business that require it and local companies run fiber for cell towers.  I know sprint is using local compies 

 

Verizon stopped deploying FIOS because they shifted that CapEx money into profit to boost the quarterly numbers and signed a non-compete agreement with the cable companies. That's why the cable company consortium dumped all the spectrum they spent billions acquiring with the intention of starting their own cell service to compete with Verizon. They've all decided to apportion TV to DirecTV/Comcast/TWC and wireless to VZW.

 

Verizon doesn't pay 3-4 per foot for fiber; the FIOS cables to the home are standard lengths up to 150ft (IIRC), so they get them for *literally* dollars each for the average home. We're talking about a one-time investment that will continue to throw off cash for a hundred years or more... but it won't goose the quarterly numbers so they don't care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The victim here in Austin is probably Grande Communications which has built out it's own DOCSIS 3.0 network and competed against TWC and AT&T for over a decade. I have great internet speed (30/3 for around $35/mo) and all cable packages come with a full TIVO box and not some shitcan TWC DVR. They offer speeds up to 110 down to residential customers and have pretty great customer service.

 

I hear TWC's response is that they plan to blanket public areas with superfast WIFI for TWC subscribers only.

 

I've used TWC's WiFi in a few of the areas where they've deployed it. Not impressed.

 

Google could do this just as easily with Fiber customers, much as Comcast is doing, except Google will have a more contiguous network because they don't charge monthly for their network box. TWC could try the same thing but $5 plus tax per month for modem rental means that there will be a ton of folks turning in their rented modems in exchange for something TWC can't reach into and enable WiFi on.

 

Also, Grande is great and all, but their upload speeds top out at 5 Mbps, and their service stops multiple miles south of me. If they had service here I'd be on it. But they don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get 30 by 4 and its fast for me.  I stream a lot and upload.  I would like at least 8 upload all that is needed and bonded uplink channels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason gigabit is ten years away in a given metro is the competition isn't being pushed hard enough.

 

And honestly it probably won't take that long to get to gigabit on the high end, even in areas that don't have a huge amount of competition right now. Comcast now has 105M as a relatively inexpensive tier, 12x faster than they were five years ago (albeit at a higher price). Cablevision (NYC) has 101/35 coming out very soon. Cox offers 150/20. In five years we've gone from DOCSIS 1.1 or 2.0 to 3.0 and channel bonding in both directions in many cities, representing a capacity increase of 8-10x in many cases. 24x8 modems are coming out nowish so already you can hit 300 Mbps in real-world conditions (on the downstream side).

 

And the next big step is DOCSIS 3.1 so you aren't losing bandwidth to channel guard bands (out of 3.2 MHz on the upstream side, only 2.56 MHz is usable for data at this point, for example) left and right, plus some other enhancements that should boost spectral efficiency quite nicely (to the tune of 30%, the other biggie being 1024QAM). Combine this with plant improvements that push systems up into the 1200MHz capacity range, plus going completely digital, and you can hit gigabit on the downstream side without much of a problem.

 

Don't get me wrong. You If you're starting out a cable network at this point it's foolish to build coax instead of fiber. But the lack of FTTH in a given area doesn't doom that area to perpetual backwater-ness connectivity-wise. Business practices might though (ahem, TWC).

A lot has happened in five years I'm fine with that! :)   People have to realize that there is a range with appectible signal for Modems to work.  Don't buy radio shack splitters and try not to add splitters to modem line

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol att needs to restructure there Internet before google comes and changes everything and att is too late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol att needs to restructure there Internet before google comes and changes everything and att is too late.

ATT doesn't want to kill ATT just to push it to expand farther, faster, and offer service cheaper.

 

If Google simply wanted to provide cheap Internet for everyone, it would start places where there's only DSL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

most households will have no use for gigabit fiber.  

640k ram should be enough for anyone.

 

These are not the droids you are looking for. Move along.

 

For what its worth my buddy son in law in KC just got Google Fiber and only got 980M/sec on a download.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ATT doesn't want to kill ATT just to push it to expand farther, faster, and offer service cheaper. If Google simply wanted to provide cheap Internet for everyone, it would start places where there's only DSL.
Yes. Google is toppling the monopolies and restoring the beauty of competition in a free(ish) market.

 

 

640k ram should be enough for anyone.These are not the droids you are looking for. Move along.For what its worth my buddy son in law in KC just got Google Fiber and only got 980M/sec on a download.
Hahaha Edited by Txmtx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the incumbent telcos & cable cos can do nothing to stop us now  ^_^

 

Yes, when consumer demand is strong the cable companies will begin sluggishly switching over to FTTH connections to the masses. Yes, there are cities with many cable companies and Fiber companies such as NYC you have mentioned. 

 

 

For cites like mine, residents have Cox cable or Windstream to chose from. 

 

 

 

Most of the country, as in most have the land coverage have 1 or zero options for high speed internet. You are very lucky.

This is because of zero competition in most areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

640k ram should be enough for anyone.

 

These are not the droids you are looking for. Move along.

 

For what its worth my buddy son in law in KC just got Google Fiber and only got 980M/sec on a download.

HA! only 980!! I had better quit now then. The limitations of Metro fiber would mean you average less than a gigabit per second. I'd charge a lot for it & i'd be a nazi about how much data you run over it. I probably wont be doing any FTTH for a few years. I do have a feasible & economic way of doing so for most of the areas i intend to serve. 

 

Most of the country, as in most have the land coverage have 1 or zero options for high speed internet. You are very lucky.

This is because of zero competition in most areas.

I hope to fix that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ATT doesn't want to kill ATT just to push it to expand farther, faster, and offer service cheaper.

 

If Google simply wanted to provide cheap Internet for everyone, it would start places where there's only DSL.

 

Like here in Kempton, PA!  I live 1/2 mile from where the cable stops, and we are too far from the CO for Verizon DSL.

 

Verizon (and other ILECs) have a commitment to PA to provide broadband to every customer by Dec. 31, 2015.  Verizon is the only company who hasn't met the commitment yet.  They told us we should have it by October 2014 - there's a very strict time limit and residency requirements to speed the process along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They actually trialed Google Fiber in NYC in Harlem using the dark fiber that was laid out in the 90's around there. Shame that didn't commercialize it.

 

When I wen to the Google Office in NYC, their internet was insanely fast, as if they had their own fiber service.

 

On second thought, they probably did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The nicest thing about google fiber is that it puts other cablecos on notice.  Grande in Austin is now offering 1gig in some areas they serve and are expanding. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, a few interesting things are happening here:

1) Time Warner is upping speeds for free. See: http://bgr.com/2014/02/20/time-warner-cable-internet-speeds-austin/

2) AT&T Gigapower (which is max 300 down so... not even close to giga-anything) is mainly downtown but reports lately are that even in areas with coverage people are waiting 30-45 days for service.

3) Grande has rolled out 1 Gig Fiber as well http://mygrande.com/austin/1-gig-fiber-internet/ but availability is super limited.

4) Google has started pulling work permits for SOUTH Austin. Here is the map of current permits: https://mapsengine.google.com/map/edit?mid=zKGIh6VixM7Q.kpvawAIdVCMA

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They actually trialed Google Fiber in NYC in Harlem using the dark fiber that was laid out in the 90's around there. Shame that didn't commercialize it.

 

When I wen to the Google Office in NYC, their internet was insanely fast, as if they had their own fiber service.

 

On second thought, they probably did.

 

It's located in the central hub for all Internet connections, so it is a direct pipe into the Internet, so to speak.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Similar Content

    • By Paynefanbro
      Yikes! T-Mobile shouldn't have spoken so soon about deploying 5G nationwide before VZW and AT&T. It'll only be a dozen cities by year end but nonetheless, I wouldn't be surprised if AT&T fast-tracked this roll out just to spite T-Mobile. I'm expecting a similar announcement from VZW very soon.
      Source: AT&T announces plans to start rolling out a true 5G network by the end of 2018
    • By xmx1024
      Hate to bring up another carrier on here, but I am on AT&T right now and do plan to switch to sprint as soon as my contract is up. is there a forum similar to this but relating to the AT&T network?
    • By Nrbelex
      The rumor mill has fully geared up, so it seems time for a thread in which the potential HTC-made 2016 Nexus phones can be discussed.
       
      Rumors suggest two phones: a 5" device codenamed Sailfish, and a larger device codenamed Marlin. Both are thought to be produced by HTC. [There's also a report that Google is making its own phone, without an OEM partner--along the lines of a Pixel phone--but that report has been largely discounted.]
       
      Android Police has claimed it knows with 8/10 certainty some specs of the smaller device--Sailfish:
      Manufactured by HTC 5" 1080p display (~440PPI) Quad-core 2.0GHz 64-bit processor (model unknown) 4GB RAM 2770mAh battery 32GB storage (unknown if multiple models will be available, or even if this is the base storage level) 12MP rear camera, 8MP front Rear-mounted fingerprint scanner USB-C port (bottom) Bottom-firing speaker or speakers (unknown if dual) Top-mounted headphone jack Bluetooth 4.2 Any thoughts on these devices? The last several Nexus devices have been Sprint compatible; is there any reason to think these won't be? Any hints in regulatory filings? How is HTC's radio performance, generally? Will Sprint sell them directly, and even if they do, will it still be preferable to buy directly from Google?
    • By jefbal99
      Only specs I've really seen leaked are 5.7" screen and based on the unannounced "Mate 8" model.
       
      From http://www.breathecast.com/articles/nexus-2015-rumors-news-leaked-video-reveals-specs-of-purported-2015-huawei-nexus-video-30407/
       
       
       
       
       
       
       

      The Mate 7 had a 4100+mah battery, speculation is that this could have the same or bigger.
       
      Anything passed through the FCC for a US and/or Sprint version that covers the Spark bands?  I'm in the market for a new phone this fall and will be going off contract, buying a Nexus.
    • By nexgencpu
      Hopefully we can finally start seeing some user feedback. So far so good! it is without a doubt the best device ive owned!!!
  • Posts

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

×