Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Gigabit Speeds At Home In the US

Posted by Soulskill on from the for-the-low-low-cost-of-way-too-much dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The Electric Power Board of Chattanooga is preparing to offer 1 Gigabit speeds at home by the end of the year. 'The city-owned utility announced today it will boost its broadband service to 1 Gigabit throughout its service territory by the end of 2010. Such a connection will be 200 times faster than the average broadband speed in America and the fastest of any US city.' The NY Times reports that the service will cost $350 per month. 'Mr. DePriest of EPB does not expect brisk demand for the one-gigabit service anytime soon. So why offer it? "The simple answer is because we can," he said.'"

19 of 249 comments (clear)

  1. The price is actually pretty nice by ManiaX+Killerian · · Score: 4, Interesting

    $3,5 per mbps is pretty close to the wholesale prices - and it would be pretty hard to get that for just 1 gbps. Where's the catch ?:)

    1. Re:The price is actually pretty nice by bpsbr_ernie · · Score: 5, Funny

      The catch... They'll announce a cap of 5 GB of data. Once you hit the cap, there will be a per MB charge. :)

    2. Re:The price is actually pretty nice by DeusExCalamus · · Score: 4, Informative

      I know nothing about it, but my guess is that it's only 1 Gbps to the router room of the Electric Power Board of Chattanooga. From there it presumably rides their T1 to the Internet. (Or whatever they have.) Also, it's probably 1 Gbps download / 128 Kbps upload.

      It's symmetrical. https://epbfi.com/you-pick/#/fi-speed-internet-1000

      --
      "...Sleep comes like a drug in God's country Sad eyes, crooked crosses in God's country..."
    3. Re:The price is actually pretty nice by Tiger4 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can't believe the ignorance of some people on slashdot to think that you could run a 1gbps service on a T1.

      I on the other CAN believe the ignorance of people on Slashdot. Just because they have access to information doesn't mean they understand it.

      --
      Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, and let us slay him... and we shall see what will become of his dreams.
    4. Re:The price is actually pretty nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      You'd be wrong. The Electric Power Board of Chattanooga is not financed by the city government, it's actually a co-op under the authority of the TVA. The TVA might have purchased it from Chattanooga, but it's independent now. And even this roll-out of infrastructure isn't being paid for by the Electric customers, the bond issued is, and it's being paid back by the services being provided.

      So...it's actually kind of good for all of us who live here. It's forced Comcast and AT&T to both get on the ball, because otherwise they'd have to just throw up their hands and give up. I've seen more utility service trucks on the streets the past year than I have since the last time I was in an area hit by a hurricane.

      Besides as much as the local people around here bitch about their property taxes, I know that wouldn't happen anyway.

    5. Re:The price is actually pretty nice by Impeesa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "I can't believe the ignorance of some people on slashdot to think that you could run a 1gbps service on a T1." I can't believe the reading comprehension required to interpret a post making exactly that point in the complete opposite way. See also: the joke about 1 gig down, 128k up. Simple version: the GGP suspects that while they can roll out gigabit fiber to the home, they do not have the additional infrastructure (such as a large pipe out) to properly utilize it.

  2. More info by auximage77 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Additional verbage. http://www.chattanoogagig.com/

    1. Re:More info by auximage77 · · Score: 5, Informative

      and before people tout about the high price, other tiers are available. https://epbfi.com/you-pick/

    2. Re:More info by vijayiyer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Everyone bitches about Comcast's service, but then isn't willing to pay for quality service. We shouldn't be surprised that we're always in a race to the bottom.

    3. Re:More info by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They're symmetric, though, which might not matter for many people, but I find nice. The 30 Mbps lowest tier is 30 Mbps each way, whereas Comcast's 30 Mbps service is 30 down, 7 up.

      --
      10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
    4. Re:More info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We, as in the USA net services, are never in a race to the bottom. We have no competition, almost all markets are locked into duopolies. You get a cable company offering, a crap DSL offering, and if you're really lucky, FiOS. There's very little impetus to upgrade service levels, when they do they're only trying to get you onto a dearer packaged deal.

      A race to the bottom is when you have real competition in a market and all the companies have to actually compete for our business. That means reducing profit margins and upping service, just to stay level. That is something we will never see in the US. This is precisely why the US is tumbling down the internet performance league tables year upon year. Stop the duopoly crap and let others, including local municipalities, get involved. Only then will the consumer see a win.

    5. Re:More info by kindbud · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The "high" price? Only thing "high" is you. What are you smoking, that $350/mo for 1Gbit seems "high?"

      Split among 10 people, that's $35 pp for 100 Mbit. How much does your cable, DSL, or fiber provider charge for 100 mbit service? Do they even offer it?

      Split among 100 people, it's $3.50 pp for 10 Mbit. How much does your cable, DSL or fiber provider charge for 10 mbit service?

      This service is almost unbelievably cheap!

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
  3. Gigabit? That's even faster than ... by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... the Chattanooga Choo-Choo!

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  4. 200 times faster? by Yvan256 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Get 199 friends and split the bill to get 5Mbps for 1.75$US per month!

    1. Re:200 times faster? by CannonballHead · · Score: 5, Funny

      Get 199 friends

      This is slashdot. There goes that idea. ;)

  5. Re:Yet the price isn't bad by PeterM+from+Berkeley · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Splitting it would be a huge win. You'd get surge access to a Gbit of bandwidth, and if everyone was "surging" at the same time, you'd get 18MB/s as you said. Considering I pay $30/month for less than 1MB/s..... Yes, I'd jump on this if I could split it.

    --PM

  6. Re:Government tax theft! by emkyooess · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Some (few) things are best provided in a monopolistic environment. Utilities (like power) and infrastructure (like this) are typically in that category. However, that's best in a public monopoly, not a for-profit, private monopoly.

  7. 1GB for $350 has fanstastic potential... by Glasswire · · Score: 5, Interesting

    >> 'Mr. DePriest of EPB does not expect brisk demand for the one-gigabit service anytime soon. So why offer it?
    Because there is a huge opportunity for resale or inclusion in basic services of multi-tenant (residential or business).
    Give 10 businesses 100MB/s for $50 / month and you're making money or for offer it free and it's a cheap inducement lease space
    Give 100 tenants 10MB/s for $10 / month and you're making more money or for offer free and it's a cheap inducement to renters

  8. Re:Awesome.. by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Then the Midwest might bring down the average speed. But there's absolutely no reason why San Francisco, LA, Chicago, NYC, shouldn't have the same high speeds as entire countries like Japan, Korea, etc.

    However, the argument you're using isn't even a good one for the Midwest. Sparsely populated places are easy to reach with long fibers, and so cheap to bring high bandwidth to. It doesn't take a huge operation or investment to bring fiber to nearly everyone in Montana or Wyoming.

    The real answer is that US the telecom network cartel has never been aggressive in bringing Internet to homes. Quite the opposite: every time there's a push to increase the reach or speed of the network, the telcos have been there to push back, claiming the new traffic load will kill the existing network, or some other malarkey. What they're afraid of is that more bandwidth creates more opportunities to compete with them, and gives them less time to milk ancient services for a dragged out period of pure profitability before investing in a new generation. And that's exactly what they've got, and what we're stuck with. Except when an org not in their cartel provides some actual competition, like this municipal network operator.

    --

    --
    make install -not war