Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Demand More From Your Copper

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the on-the-grid dept.

D3 wrote in with a submission about fiber to the home, or the lack of it, and the reasons behind this, and ways to work around the Bells to provide high-speed access despite them. A pretty decent article, which actually goes beyond the Baby Bell PR-speak that deregulation is the solution to everything. Maybe at some point state and Federal regulators will realize that the Bells are the problem, not the solution.

13 of 252 comments (clear)

  1. Cost Cost Cost by Smallpond · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Fiber may be cheap, but high-speed conversion to copper isn't.

    Also, DSL cannot run over fiber, so the most common low-cost
    solution is eliminated by fiber to the home.

  2. At least........ by g0hare · · Score: 4, Insightful

    when it was all AT&T I didn't get 10 calls a day asking if I'd like to switch long distance companies.

    --
    Vote Quimby!
  3. Why would we want it? by Soluxx · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Seriously, why would we want fiber in the home? I have a cable modem and I'm perfectly happy with it. I think what would drive something like that is an application that requires it. MP3's, Chatting, Games, always having a connection on, etc... That's what drove the popularity of Cable modems and DSL's. Other than a huge File Sharing Node, why would we want fiber?

    1. Re:Why would we want it? by stratjakt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >> Other than a huge File Sharing Node, why would we want fiber?

      Because competition for the cable monopolies is a Good Thing (tm).

      Besides, this article is about copper, and how all the copper in the ground can still be utilized to do what fiber could.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    2. Re:Why would we want it? by VoidEngineer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For information on who wants it, and where it's being pioneered, check out the Chicago CivicNet project.

      Imagine:

      Real-time, video-on-demand services which act as video phones, and replaces the telephone as the major telecommunications medium which American society uses.

      Real time autostereoscopic 3D television.

      Virtual reality applications, such as the Street, the Matrix, the University, ChalkBoard, and so forth. Imagine walking into a virtual classroom or office, from home, when it's too cold and snowy out to drive to school or work.

      Real time stock trading from your home to the local city's stock market or board of trade.

      Real time browsing of Hubble Telescope data and Sloan data...

      Imagine all of this in 1200x1600 32 bit color resolution, in stereoscopic 3D. And imagine it running 100 times faster than your current DSL connection.

      That's why you want fiber in the home, and that's why people like Mayor Daley and 60+ corporations in Chicago are working to make it happen...

    3. Re:Why would we want it? by vadim_t · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, I've also heard that when 9600 bps modems came out some people said that they were too fast because you could download text faster than you could read it. Now I've got a 256/128K ADSL, and wouldn't mind having something faster.

  4. Change in business model required! by Aviancer · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The article points out that the major reason the bells (er, bell; hasn't SBC bought all the others yet?) don't want to do this is because they are required to lease out the lines to competitors.

    So why not swap business models and become a service provider to the "competitors" instead of "end users." This gives you the incentive to build the infrastructure.

  5. UWB, WiFi...hello? by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Its been obvious for years now that no one is going to rewire the neighborhoods of America. We are waiting for wireless data connections to get fast cheap and plentiful. Until then you have DSL and cable modem at best.

    Fiber to the home has never been a serious consideration and in fact only would re-establish the same monopolies we have now - a wire can only have one owner.

  6. Regulation by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The important point is that once you regulate you have to keep regulating. Regulation MAY be bad for consumers; Deregulation IS bad for consumers.

    The FCC has ruined DSL by requiring that the telco be responsible for quality but third parties not. In other words, if covad DSL gives you poor performance, you have nothing to fall back on but your terms of service. If pacbell DSL gives you poor performance (lower than rated, or any significant downtime) then you can call the FCC and they'll fine SBC $500.

    Regulation must be undertaken carefully, deregulation moreso. They deregulated the power companies in California, where are we now?

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  7. Re:Monopolies by Bisifiniti · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Actually, the examples given are rather poor. Seeing as how a) That's a business deal. The wife agreed to buy exclusively from you. b) A government is a public institution, not a private institution. c) We do not purchase money. There is no product being exchanged. Besides, it's ours, and through Congress, we have decided that it's the gov't's responsibility to manufacture and distribute money. Really, it's a stretch to say they're monopolies. If you don't live the gov't, you can easily move to another country.

  8. Aiming a firehose at a teacup. by zerofoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Lots of people are concentrating on the physical cable and its associated costs to install. What about the switching infrastrucure costs?

    A typical voice conversation requires around 64k/s of bandwidth. Now consider what type of switching infrastructure would be required if everyone had 100Mbps fiber at their house. Do you think that Verizon is going to canabalize their T1 buisinesses? At $400/mo. for a local loop, I don't think so.

    Recap:

    1. Consumer/small business grade high-bandwidth fiber costs alot to install.

    2. It requires that the telcos spend mega-bucks to upgrade their switching gear (possibly to photonic switching gear...$cha-ching$)

    3. It will canabalize their high-margin T1 business. (No there really isn't a viable competitor to this if you want static IP).

    4. And to top it all off, they've got to charge $40-$80/mo, or no consumers will buy it. (Some businesses will, but they are already spedning $800/mo. for T1s.)

    Higher costs and lower revenue. Now, explain why Verizon would WANT to do this?

    -ted

  9. regulators are the problem. by geekee · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Maybe at some point state and Federal regulators will realize that the Bells are the problem, not the solution."

    State and federal regulators gave ma bell the exclusive right to run phone cable in the first place. They gave the Bells their monopoly. The made the Bells what they are today. The quoted statement therefore is completely stupid. Regulators need to realize that THEY are the problem, not the solution.

    --
    Vote for Pedro
  10. The problem's not the media, it's the companies. by Gldm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I mean who cares if you've got fiber if they're just going to throttle you to death like they do now? At home in NY I'm lucky, I can get 1m up 10m down (real world) cable. Out at school in SF, lucky is getting better than 144k/144k IDSL for $99/month. You might get 128/1.5 of which you see about 90/400. It's not that they can't deliver the bandwidth, you can pay ridiculous amounts for "business class" DSL which uses the same line and same modem from the same providers, just without speed locking. Why do we need a faster medium when they won't even let the existing medium run at full potential?

    --

    Introducing the new Occam Fusion! Now with sqrt(-1) fewer blades!