The Next Big Fiber Showdown: Austin

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Next Big Fiber Showdown: Austin

Posted by timothy on Tuesday October 1, 2013 @04:47AM from the att-dsl-sure-leaves-me-unimpressed dept.

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?"

31 of 230 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

competition by asmkm22 · 2013-10-01 04:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

Funny what a little competition can do. Now if only this stuff could happen in other areas.
1. Re:competition by Xicor · 2013-10-01 04:57 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  it isnt free if you have to pay more taxes for it.
2. Re:competition by Xicor · 2013-10-01 04:58 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  att wont be able to compete. google is charging the same price for gb internet as att charges everyone for 20mbit. rolling out fiber and then charging 100$ more wont do anything to compete with google. that being said, maybe eventually att will wisen up and start offering fiber in other cities at a competitive rate (before google gets there), but i doubt that seriously, since att milks their customers for money.
3. Re:competition by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-01 05:14 · 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.
4. Re:competition by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-01 05:15 · 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?
5. Re:competition by djyrn3715 · 2013-10-01 05:17 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Google wins either way. Best case scenario is if 1GB starts to roll out everywhere ahead of Google Fiber. That way they don't have to muck about with the infrastructure, and they still get people using their services at the higher rate.
6. Re:competition by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-01 05:53 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  That's crazy talk, since when would Google just start shutting down services?
7. Re:competition by AvitarX · 2013-10-01 06:20 · 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.
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
8. Re:competition by sneakyimp · 2013-10-01 06:31 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The telecom industry is already subsidized (see Universal Service Fund) and it doesn't really work. On the other hand, shared infrastructure, something the government could invest in, apparently has great benefits in fostering competition in Korea, for example. The basic idea is that instead of letting ISPs build their own proprietary network, we build open, shared internet infrastructure and let ISPs share the infrastructure and compete for customers. This is sort of obliquely analagous to the breakup of AT&T in 1984. The government mandated that AT&T resell its network to long distance resellers and the prices of long distance plummeted over the next 10 years.
9. Re:competition by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-01 06:36 · 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 property to do with as he pleases, and it's that sort of lack of nannystatism that drew me to NH.
  As I understand it one newcomer called on another neighbor for exactly that. The police apparently said "So? It's their backyard and it's their constitutional right, unless they're shooting you." That took place before I moved to the neighborhood so it's just hearsay, but I do believe it because when Massholes move up here they often bring their moonbat baggage with them and try to force it on us. GTFO! Go back to Moonbatachusetts if you want a nanny state, pussy!
  Anyway, FUCK homeowner associations. Anyone who joins one deserves what they get when the HOA decides satellite dishes are bad, your American flag is offensive, HAM antennae are bad, you parked your sportscar in the driveway, you own "too many cars" or you simply painted the house the wrong shade of grey or green, or no, you cannot install a pool because your irresponsible asshole neighbor fears his kid might hop your fence, trespass and drown in the pool (which IMHO would be a service to humanity). A fool who willingly cedes his rights deserves everything bad he reaps from it down the road.
10. Re:competition by LoRdTAW · 2013-10-01 07:46 · Score: 2
  
  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.
11. Re:competition by bored · 2013-10-01 08:42 · Score: 2
  
  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 on the street drops little hints like "does that thing still run" or "you can donate that for a tax writeoff" but he doesn't get it and he has a car that hasn't moved for 7+ years. The tires went flat 5+ years ago.
  So, I understand both sides of the coin..
300Mbps for $?$?$ by Sponge+Bath · 2013-10-01 04:55 · Score: 3, Informative

Initial speed will be 300Mbps, of unknown cost, probably with the current 250GB monthly cap, available in few unspecified areas... oh boy.
1. Re:300Mbps for $?$?$ by Sponge+Bath · 2013-10-01 04:58 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I forgot the link showing the initial rollout will only be 300Mbps.
Why by interkin3tic · 2013-10-01 04:58 · Score: 5, Funny

What is AT&T's plan here?

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! ... Probably? They'll just assume we're going to do it anywhere they announce next and will all hang themselves, at which point we can quadruple the costs for the austin fiber and everywhere else."
All: "AMAZING!!!"
1. Re:Why by internerdj · 2013-10-01 06:03 · Score: 2
  
  I've never had Time Warner but I've got to say I can't even imagine how that is possible.
2. Re:Why by Somebody+Is+Using+My · 2013-10-01 07:43 · Score: 2
  
  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'll probably inadvertently lose your payment for the last three months.
  With Time Warner, you'll have a flakier connection but at least when you have to get a guy over to check the cabling it won't take three months and he'll actually fix the problem (at least until something else breaks).
  Admittedly, these are just my personal experiences and a wider data set would doubtlessly reveal discrepancies in this generalization. But then, that's the same with most of the comments on Slashdot.
3. Re:Why by charlesnw · 2013-10-01 08:08 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  No they don't require you to get cable with the internet service. Not in Austin anyway. It's cheaper to get cable+internet, that might be what you are referring to? Please don't spread misinformation, that's really not helpful. We need to have informed arguments with facts about the various carriers.
  
  --
  Charles Wyble System Engineer
They haven't decided because Google hasn't... by rahvin112 · 2013-10-01 05:04 · Score: 4, 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? by Dega704 · 2013-10-01 05:06 · Score: 2

This sort of thing was Google's intent all along; not directly competing with ISPs, but doing just enough to light a fire under their seats and demonstrate how full of it they are about the cost of network infrastructure.
1. Re:As planned? by luciano.moretti · 2013-10-01 05:26 · 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 state) and it would mean that the city counsel would have to fight it and likely a legal battle afterward, but it is a route where a door could be opened to requiring big players to upgrade service to levels equivalent to Google if they try to fight in select areas instead of their whole service area.
Maybe it'll be like Dallas by ThatsNotPudding · 2013-10-01 05:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

In AT&T's Dallas HQ parking garage, you can get four bars in every elevator as it's critcally important all their execs be in constant contact.

But for their customers? Ha! This will be just more cobbled-together Uverse hybrid garbage.
Natural monopoly by Strange+Attractor · 2013-10-01 05:24 · 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.
Good luck to them by Mabonus · 2013-10-01 05:26 · 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.
1. Re:Good luck to them by swillden · 2013-10-01 07:52 · Score: 3, 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.
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I'll see your HERP and raise you DERP. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-01 05:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

it isn't free if you have to pay a communications surcharge fee for it for a decade and get nothing to show for it.
1. Re:I'll see your HERP and raise you DERP. by sneakyimp · 2013-10-01 07:10 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was written by a Congress with a Republican majority in both Senate and House (the first time since the 50s this had happened). Blaming Clinton for it is pretty weak. It reminds me of blaming a certain other POTUS for a certain government shutdown that happened because Congress passed a law and then wanted to un-pass it.
die in a fire at&t by Dan667 · 2013-10-01 05:43 · Score: 3, Interesting

They had their chance to take care of me as a paying Customer. At this point, no matter what at&t or time warner do at this point I will dump them the first opportunity to get Google Fiber.
And who cares? by Okian+Warrior · 2013-10-01 05:58 · Score: 4, 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.
1. Re:And who cares? by Miamicanes · 2013-10-01 15:39 · Score: 3, 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:at&t guy came by my house the other day by afidel · 2013-10-01 07:48 · Score: 2

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.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.