Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
LTE wireless broadband
120Mpbs to 180Mpbs
Rolling out now ...
My bad. I just remembered. Streaming the last two seasons of your favorite pirated tv program is a constitutionally protected first amendment right. Sorry.
The private market can go above and beyond if they want to lure customers away from the utility.
The mayor announced a reshuffle on May 8th: Tina "Podlodowski will return to the Mayor’s Office of Policy and Innovation to focus on developing new policy options for public broadband in the city."
How about you find a journalist to contact Tina.
@2, Goldy would talk about it, get an "idea" as if he had an original thought, and then would run off into the weeds.
LTE isn't a viable solution. Wireless bandwidth is limited. For every person using it, the speed goes down. This is a problem with the laws of physics
What exactly are you doing that you need gigabit? Do you need to five 4k movies at the same time? There's almost no reason I can think of where an individual or household would need more than 100MBps. That is more than enough for a house to stream all of it's video and still download and use the internet normally. And you're never going to find a source that can saturate that speed of connection. Netflix is going to struggle to send you 20MBps much less 100.
Why shouldn't Internet connectivity, the Interstate Highway System of the 21st Century, be provided TO citizens BY the government FOR which they pay? Why should this be treated any differently than any other public utility such as water, electricity, gas, sewers, garbage & recycling collection? I know people like you have constant wet-dreams over the idea of privatizing literally everything because - CAPITALISM!, but seriously, if the public is already making the investment via SCL and it can be accomplished at a reasonable price resulting in faster service at lower cost to the taxpayer, then what's your beef?
Or is it just that you own a lot of stock in Comcast or Time-Warner?
Now, if you wanted to argue for fiber to the node I think you could make a very good case for that to be a City Light provision and whatever Murray's Gigabit plan is actually following that up with fiber to the premises, I think you'd have a valid pathway to progress on getting this done.
It's not just about 4k Netflix. It's about the next "Big Thing" on the net that we can't imagine but requires a lot more bandwidth then our current infrastructure can handle. But a good right-now example is Google Drive/Dropbox and things like Carbonite: Right now it takes forever to upload large amounts of data to them. Imagine being able to do offsite backup of your entire computer in a matter of hours instead of days, weeks, or even months. You could also store large video files in the cloud, eliminating the need for convoluted NAS devices.
Do you understand how fiber infrastructure works? When you lay fiber you're running glass cables from point A to B. At point A a device takes the electrical impulses and fires a laser down the glass to point B. At point B, a second device sees the laser pulses, and turns it back into electrical impulses. A single strand of fiber 9 microns thick can easily send 10TBps. All you need to do is change the box at each end. The infrastructure and expensive parts of the roll out are the actual cables you are laying and burying. They can remain unchanged forever. Need more bandwidth, just buy a new box. That's how come a company can go from an OC-3 (155MBps) to an OC-192 (10GBps) without running new cables. Just call up your ISP and they'll send a guy out to install the new box. Simple as that.
As for bandwidth. There is a limit to how much data we'll ever need to push. Video is about the most data intense application we have. The bitrate for 4K video is 20MBps. That's not going up. A 4K video 100 years from now will still only require 20MBps to send (actually probably less as the processing power grows, you can do more CPU intensive compression techniques so that the bitrate is lower). A 4K video is already at the limits of what you can see. With a 100MBps you can watch five of them concurrently.
Other than for a corporate customer, 100MBps that is guaranteed at that speed with a low latency will be more than enough bandwidth for the foreseeable future. The latency is actually much more of a problem than the bandwidth at that point.
For corporations that might have 100's of users on a connection, 100MBps is not enough. But it's trivial to add more and doesn't change the infrastructure at all.
Just call it a streetcar, and everyone will get on board and slather it with love. Tell the Times it will also get rid of the estate tax.
At least they listed Tacoma twice...
You can upload a terrabyte of data in 3 hours at 100MBps. With the way incremental backups work, 100MBps would already meet the needs of almost everyone but the most intense users. 100MBps is fast enough to upload your 4K videos in the cloud in real time. Some of the early SSD's can't even write data that fast. At 100MBps you could conceivably put all of your data in the cloud and use it as the HD. The problem is latency at that point not speed.
I'm against it because it adds upfront costs, and doesn't make it worth it. Why spend the extra money to move to 1GBps (and spend A LOT on backbone infrastructure to meet that demand) when you can satisfy 99% of the people with 100MBps?
Most people have 100MBps wired networks in their home. So they can't even take advantage of the higher speeds. And if you're on wifi you definitely won't see a difference going from 100MBps to 1GBps.
If there is a user out there that needs it, they can pay more for it. But there's no need to make that standard.
Anyway, what is the cost to the utility of deploying gigabit boxes (as standard, and thus scaled) versus 100mbps boxes? If it isn't significant, why do you care?
No, it's like my cable modem, or my router. It's something you could pick up from the company and install yourself. It's like going from DOCIS 2.0 to DOCIS 3.0. All you need to do is tell Comcast you have a DOCIS 3.0 modem and they can increase your speed.
The cost of the box isn't a trivial amount, but it would make a difference. The biggest cost would be in the internet backbone. Whoever runs the ISP is going to have to buy more OC-192 lines to start connecting to the backbone providers. For someone like Google this is easy, they already have tons of high speed interconnects to all of the backbone providers. Plus, much of the internet you seek out originates from Google's own networks they can serve up the content easily. In a municipal ISP, nearly all the data would be originating from some other network. To guarantee 1GBps speeds they'd basically need one OC-192 for every 10 customers (well, not really because not everyone is likely to saturate the connection all at once, but I'm trying to make a simple example). Otherwise they could advertise 1GBps, but never actually deliver it. Just go price out a OC-192 and then you'll see that it quickly doesn't make sense to deliver those speeds to the home, especially not as the default. Once the fiber is there, you can deploy 1GBps where needed and the customer is willing to pay for it.
But I would advise anyone against paying extra for more. I'm not sure I could even get the most out of a 100MBps connection, and I'm a heavy user. Like I've said before. Once you get to these speeds latency is much more important than speed. I'd rather have a 25MBps connection with 5ms latency than a 1GBps connection with 50ms latency.
Yes I think they are being conservative. I've read industry articles saying 120Mbps and even an upgrade that will give it 180Mbps.
I've used Clear Wimax for years and years and it's only 6Mbps but it does Netflix ok.
Yes, but real world, the biggest application by far these days is streaming video, specifically Netflix.
A typical Netflix is 3600MB (HD). So with 60Mpbs it will take about 9 minutes to download. So that means instead of hogging up a traditional connection for 2 hours while the Netflix downloads, you're doing it in very fast bursts and freeing up the channel for other people. And Netflix buffers it's movies so you doing really get more than a few minutes worth on your system which means it will very, very quickly burst, and free up the node quickly.
Everything else -- social media, gaming -- uses trivial amounts of bandwidth! So putting lots of users doing those things on a single antenna is no big at that speed.
I think you meant that for someone else (@9 perhaps?), as I didn't address the bandwidth issue in my comment.