Slashdot Mirror
San Francisco Just Took a Huge Step Toward Internet Utopia (wired.com)
Susan Crawford, writing for Backchannel: Last week, San Francisco became the first major city in America to pledge to connect all of its homes and businesses to a fiber optic network. I urge you to read that sentence again. It's a ray of light. In an era of short-term, deeply partisan do-nothing-ism, the city's straightforward, deeply practical determination shines. Americans, it turns out, are capable of great things -- even if only at the city level these days. [...] San Francisco's dilemma is a compact form of the crisis in communications facing the rest of the country: Although fiber is the necessary infrastructure for every policy goal we have -- advanced healthcare, the emergence of new forms of industries, a chance for every child to get an education, managed use of energy, and on and on -- the private sector, left to its own devices, has no particular incentive to ensure a widespread upgrade to fiber optic connections. Comcast dominates access in the city, but has no plans to replace its cable lines -- great at downloads, not so great at uploads, no opportunity to scale to the capacity of fiber thanks to the laws of physics, and expensive to subscribe to -- with fiber. And its planned enhancements to its cable lines have, in other cities, resulted in a product costing $150 per month. AT&T will say it's upgrading to fiber in San Francisco, but so far its work in many other US cities has been incremental, confined to areas where it has existing business customers to serve or where it already has fiber in place. Other, smaller providers similarly have no plans to do a city-wide upgrade, leaving San Francisco with a deeply uneven patchwork of connectivity. Just as in the rest of the country, poorer and less-well-educated San Franciscans tend not to subscribe to a wire at home, but instead rely wholly on smartphone data plans -- no substitutes, given their expense and throttled capacity, for what's possible using a wired connection.
Thatâ(TM)s great. In stead of dealing with the homeless issues just give everyone internet access and a map of where not to walk because of human waste in the street.
Internet "utopia"? You mean Internet HELL!
Perhaps they should focus on more basic needs. Eliminating the feces that litter the streets. The horrible roads that are full of potholes. Lowering housing costs. Yeah, Internet... that's the most important thing.
I tend not to get too excited about political promises. There are two ways, as I see it, this can happen. One is the city tries to build the network. The private ISPs will sue and the project will languish for years, if it ever gets off the ground at all. Second, the city pays the private ISP's to build the network--in other words, a giant handout. Then some public interest group will sue, and the project will languish for years, if it ever gets off the ground at all.
The summary makes it seem like SF has the equivalent of rural internet, but how does this compare to the well-known cluster known as Seattle?
"to PLEDGE to connect all of its homes and businesses to a fiber optic network."
Which means about as much as Unicorn power.
It will all be twisted apart in the next big quake when San Francisco is again reduced to rubble anyway. Bad place to build a city.
The big ISPs will sue SF into the ground to stop this from happening, just like they do to anyone else that tries it.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
...also relatively easy for a square city of 47 square miles vs. any other "major" city to do this. But hey, no doubt would be sweet if it ever happens.
At least it's not more gold leaf for city hall.
I, for one, welcome gigabit Internet service to the tents in San Francisco's homeless camps!
https://sf.curbed.com/2017/6/2...
advanced healthcare, the emergence of new forms of industries, a chance for every child to get an education, managed use of energy,
All those things listed... not one of them has low hanging fruit that is addressed by "faster internet". Healthcare is a big, expensive mess - and that is not because hospitals and doctors' offices can't get fast internet. Education is an absolute shitshow in all but a few states, and that has nothing to do with the internet. Energy use monitoring consists of low-bandwidth wireless meters that benefit not at all from fiber. I'm sure that industries will pop up to take advantage of subsidized internet, just as industries pop up when there is subsidized water, electricity, etc. Even subsidized shit.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
At least they will have been made to want to hate it. Cue the industrial standard meme templates...
And then cue the industrial standard perfectly mirroring anti-templates. Because there must be a binary US vs THEM, and not a reasonable discussion. And *both* sides must be extreme and insane and evil.
Also, the discussion will not be about the actually relevant things. It will be about two "sides" of only irrelevant differences, who both are on the same (evil) side in the relevant things.
And everyone who's not for us, must be against us. There can be no other positions!
So... let's test if you're a case in point: Do you, while reading this, believe I hate you, or are against you, or want to harm you, or oppose your deepest wishes, or any of that? ... See? ... Even being fully aware of it, it's *so fucking hard* to not fall for it, isn't it?
No, I don’t think any of that. I’m the one who hasn’t given up on humanity, who actually gives a fuck, and who wants everything to be fair and free with *zero* compromises for anyone
So... can we skip this whole bullshit, and go straight to the sane and reasonable part after the inevitable second US civil war? /rant
Did it a bit over five years ago. Can get 10 gig access if you want it.
Doobie-doobie-doo
It's great and all, and obviously cities need to modernize infrastructure. But let's not get too self congratulatory here and act like SF is some sort of shangi-la. As I recall SF is the city where property is insanely expensive, and unless you're a super-rich tech nerd making 300 grand a year, forget about ever owing a house in SF proper.
Everyone having fiber isn't something like everyone having a job, or everyone having affordable housing. This is the kind of thing you might be incredibly happy about if you already have everything else. The article summary is some sort of weird distortion of reality where the only thing that matters is access to super-high speed internet.
Let's examine the utopia that is SF, shall we? Illegals are protected (and allowed to murder no less!), middle class people can't afford to live there. Hell no one can afford to live there for that matter. It's run by shitty, moronic liberals. I wonder which Citty Council members will be getting big kickbacks for this? Not to mention, IF they do manage not to bankrupt the city with this, do you REALLY think they won't censor the shit out of it? 'To block hate speech (ie speech on things they disagree with)' ostensibly I'm sure.
Look, I'm all for this, but we all know how fucking moronic California is, and how the city and state governments are the real fascists here, wanting to control everything and every one. Do you really think this isn't yet another power play by these crass pillocks?
If you don't, you're almost certainly a registered Democrat.
San Francisco is about 5 billion dollars in debt. Although that's only 1/4 of the per capita debt of NYC, it's still irresponsible of the city to make such a claim.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
or jobs along with that fiber optic network in their utopia.
Seems more like a dystopia. Bread and circuses.
"Comcast dominates access in the city..."
Say no more.
When one of the largest cities in our entire country allows a fucking monopoly on internet service, there's only one true problem to solve for; the corruption that creates and sustains that shit.
"straightforward, deeply practical determination shines"
Right!
https://sf.budgetchallenge.org... (this is an official SFO city page)
This projection reveals deficits of $86 million in FY 2016-17 and $161 million in FY 2017-18, a total deficit of approximately $246.4 million over the next two years.
This is simultaneous with their floating a $3.5 BILLION bond to desperately try to fix BART infrastructure: https://www.wired.com/2016/03/...
Oh wait, not really: http://www.mercurynews.com/201...
"Less than three months after voters passed a $3.5 billion BART bond for capital projects, transit officials presented budget forecasts in which the district reneges on its part of the deal."
And let's not forget:
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.c...
Gov. Jerry Brown has proposed a $122.5 billion budget for California and is warning of a possible $2 billion deficit in the coming fiscal year.
Not sure what the OP is peddling, but the fact is that SFO's budget is sheer fantasy already without adding the ridiculous cost of shoving fiber-internet everywhere.
Even in California you can't build infrastructure out of candy, unicorns, and rainbows.
-Styopa
What's the point of having fiber-to-home if everyone has shoddy-rat-eaten copper IN home?
Wasn't that suppose to supersede all wired connections? I can't get fiber in my area because no company wants to run new strands. So I have been waiting for the ubiquitous wi-fi for a couple years now. When is it going to get here?
Put aside the facts that San Francisco is turning into a complete and utter cesspool, almost literally, and that the chances that this plan is going to be implemented is lower than the chance you get hit by a meteorite on the way to pick up your PowerBall winnings with your new girlfriend Natalie Portman.
That aside why the heck are slashdot people so damn fascinated/obsessed with high-speed internet access? A huge number of people would be perfectly OK with 1meg service (i.e. a slight improvement over a phone modem) if it was dead-nuts reliable and you always got 1 meg, they are screwing around with social media that is mostly a text medium and playing youtube videos, what they heck are they going to do with 50-100 meg or higher?
Yeah I read that as "the one or two companies that we granted exclusive rights to the city in exchange for a cash payment has no incentive to spend a shitload of capital".
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
I pledge to cure all forms of cancer in one month!
I urge you to read that sentence again. It's the most rayest of light there is.
Nobody else is doing anything about cancer. Nobody else is working on a cure, so I'll do it.
I'm the greatest! Yea me!
captcha: drunken
Since thousands of people call the streets of San Francisco thier home, will the connectivity incllude al ofl them?
Mabe the liberals that run San Francisco might want first to take care of the poor, the execrement, and the urine which decorate their streets. Jeebus, don't you know these liberals care! But the caring stops when it's at the cost of higher internet speeds for the rich. Priorities, dontcha know.
Although fiber is the necessary infrastructure for every policy goal we have -- advanced healthcare, the emergence of new forms of industries, a chance for every child to get an education, managed use of energy, and on and on
No. Maybe faster internet is necessary infrastructure for those things. Maybe not. There are enough other comments exploring the truth of that assertion.
But fiber is just one possible medium for delivering faster internet. Believe it or not, I get incredibly fast internet (500/100 Mbps) over coaxial cable. I used to get 200/200 over microwave. Both of them were affordable ($60 for the super premium plan).
Without competition forcing market participants to improve the quality of their services and/or lower their prices there will be no improvement again. With the government providing it, it will also be more expensive (unions will drive up prices because their is no one with a large enough interest to bother to fight). Who will compete with a "free service" provided by the city? No one. Get ready for 9 month delays for hook up, no privacy, substandard support, and zero investment from the day it is installed until forever.
"Although fiber is the necessary infrastructure for every policy goal we have [...] a chance for every child to get an education,"
Really? There is no chance of some children being educated without fiber to the home?
and their paid for repubs will tie it up in legal challenges forever. Sudden plans to upgrader their networks etc will spring from the wood work.
Who is paying for this? Taxpayers. Meaning money stolen from taxpayers at gunpoint by the City of San Francisco. Perhaps the author should step outside her Marxist bubble and read something other than Daily Kos.
Why on earth would any telecom upgrade:
- It speeds transition to cord cutting
- It undermines lucrative business plans
- Some currently get by with lucrative cellular data plans
I absolutely believe telecoms promise everything and deliver nothing or just enough to look like they care. It is up to communities to upheave these dumbass telcos.
I am not trying to be cynical or snarky here.
The literal meaning of Utopia is NO WHERE.
Which is ironic because this is just another stupid government promise blowing smoke in the faces of voters while partying on tax dollars and bankruptcy.
Just like the bankruptcy of that other California town Stockton.
Soon it will come to Greece, Spain, Illinois, and the EU.
Everything the government touches becomes bloated, crumbles down and breaks at the tax payers expense.
I would kind of expect at least this level of public service when a one bedroom costs $5000-$10000 per month.
Fix your real problems if you've got extra money. Traffic, homelessness, extreme cost of living - stop ignoring those issues.
This from the same state that said it would provide every illegal with FREE Healthcare? Even knowing what the budget numbers where in excess of a trillion dollars they voted for it anyway?
Where is this money going to come from to hookup every home with Fiber?
Maybe they could add a RENT tax, so that if you pay $3800 a month rent now, you would gladly pay $4700 a month rent with a nice tax.
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
The US cities most likely to be wiped out by a major earthquake are not the ones that have frequent quakes. Those cities have constant reminders to keep their codes up and they also have constant releases of pressure from the fault.
The cities exposed to the New Madrid fault are more likely to be truly wiped out. It's Saint Louis that should be worried, not San Francisco.
Gee, wouldn't it be INTERESTING what kind of no-bid contract that involves?
I almost feel bad for having gigabit fibre at home.
I'm a fan of municipal fiber but the breathless tone of the piece is a bit over the top. It's a good idea, but San Francisco shouldn't congratulate itself too much - Longmont, CO has had fiber to the home for quite some time, and I'm sure there are other cities as well. Early subscribers enjoy $50/month for 1Gb up and down, and if I remember right it's only $70 for the later subscribers. Beats the snot out of the Comcast / Centurylink duopoly.
Pledging is not the same as doing. Other cities have tried to do this and failed.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
This is precisely why people like Trump want to return the power to the states. The feds couldn't hope to implement anything addressing the diversity of needs throughout the country without imposing unrealistic, ineffectual, totalitarian policies. Bravo to San Fran. :)
Come to New Zealand - almost the whole country is pledged to fibre. In more and more suburbs, copper is not even used
Take heart and don't listen to the naysayers good people of SF. I was in Austin when GAATN was built and adopted. Yes, Time Warner passed [probably literally, but technically got Texas legislators to pass] a law saying city ownership of public network infrastructure should be illegal in Texas. But I think public ownership of fiber infrastructure and leaseback to operators for use with conditions is actually a great way to go, if the city has the will to fight ISPs. In the case of GAATN, it could have provided service but for the law, but it is still used by all public sectors of the local economy
City ownership of fiber is totally awesome, and need not be a tax burden. Quite the reverse. GAATN has paid dividends over almost 25 years! GAATN might have flaws that I'm sure the good people among you will point out. But my broad point remains: Public ownership of fiber infrastructure is good for the people who live in the public ownership service area, even if they themselves do not receive the service themselves, and even more if they do.
Besides, don't we all support a free and open internet? [besides you, Lowell or Randall]
You are right. "Leaders" in WDC are more concerned about growing their wealth and power and holding onto their jobs and cooperating with "the other party" than in anything that has to do with making the country and its people more efficient.
Efficient government is not in the plans!
I realize the world's not a level playing field, but it's not a planned economy either. People compete for and to keep jobs. The better performers are kept, the losers are fired. Bad businesses go out of business. Cheaters abound, but majority of us are honest and work for a living. [Ref: https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-many-americans-have-a-police-record-probably-more-than-you-think-1438939802] So when people lose their job, lose their car, lose their lifestyle, it's usually because the world decided to stop paying them for what they offered. So most of those homeless people are NOT people that lost their way from tragedy but from their own bad decisions, in chosing not to work hard in school, at their jobs, in being too proud to take jobs below them. Why does the world now need to work to save these people? It's already decided we don't want them. Let's work on saving the people who are trying to do the right thing but struggling ... people in poverty or lower middle class with good grades in school, people in shitty jobs doing great at their job. Use the money and effort wasted on homeless people and just pay more to the struggling good people.
Yes, "good" is subjective. I'm basing it on grades and reviews at work. Let's have a vote on what "good" people should be saved. But let's stop the constants reverts to saving the homeless. Most of them are a bunch of losers that screwed around while we were working. They're reaping what they deserve. Let's help people more deserving.
Yes, some homeless are worth saving. But I'm betting more of the struggling middle class and poor are worth saving. Let's focus there instead.
As I've become more Libertarian, I've found the biggest difference I have with most other Libertarians is that I firmly believe there is a place and responsibility for government. One of the largest areas is wherever the power of eminent domain is required to provide a service. Yes you heard that right. As a Libertarian, I firmly believe that the government should own, regulate and maintain:
-the roads
-the power lines
-the communication infrastructure.
The reason I believe this is because the government should be responsible for creating markets. "Markets" being defined as infrastructure that enables all citizens to interact freely. The roads allow farmers to grow food in one place, then transport it for sale in another, while a miner can use them to ship ore to a steel plant, that can then use them to ship beams to a construction site. A central control is required to map out, lay down and maintain the infrastructure that allows all the players to interact. This will require some heavy handed moves, as sometimes property must be taken, but there is a legal due process to protect the weak in these cases.
The government owning and maintaining the power lines would mean that anyone could set up a solar power farm (or wind, or hydro, or flatulence), and sell their power to whoever was willing to pay for it. Building out the infrastructure requires eminent domain, and the same legal protections should be in place.
Likewise, the communication infrastructure should not stand to the whims of commercial interests. The same protections to be provided for all parties. Roads get build in the good parts of town, as well as the bad. The communication infrastructure should get build out the same way, and the weak should have the same legal protections.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Last week, San Francisco became the first major city in America to pledge to connect all of its homes and businesses to a fiber optic network
So, the wealthy young tech workers will have super fast internet during the 20 hours they are not actually at their cubicle... great!
The difference in my mortgage payment vs what it would be in SF is enough to cover three full racks in a datacenter.
.. their plans are not in agreement with pre-existing agreements that other politicians have made with both the cable and phone providers and possibly the water and power utilities. It will cost them a hefty bag of money to abrogate those agreements and potentially years of legal proceedings.
Best of luck of course.
But the key difference is you'd be living in Bumfuck, USA instead of a real city in walking distance to your job with good schools. (not bible thumping, anti-evolution, intelligent design teaching schools)
That is the key word in this entire story. And how do they plan on doing this exactly? Short of the city forming its own non profit telco it means they have to deal with the monopolistic ISPs. A monopoly that was wholly created by government in the first place by the way.
Naturally the ISPs are going to demand, and get, massive kickbacks in the form of tax breaks that are made up by you and I. So the government will hand over all kinds of money to the ISPs with the promise to run fiber to every house. Except that won't happen because the idiots that write up the agreement (the government idiots) will neglect to mention exactly how the money may be spent. Seeing that massive gaping hole in the agreement the ISPs will proceed to hand out huge bonuses to their executives instead of investing it in the way it was intended. The fiber network will be partially done but never completed.
Sound familiar? It should because that is exactly what happened with the TARP funds. Only that time it was banks instead of ISPs.
Call me skeptical but I'll believe it when I see it. I have no confidence in government being able to handle any large scale projects without massive cost overruns, rampant corruption and nepotism.
The ReplyAll podcast covered the Verizion FiOS "everywhere" in NYC story a while back. Short version: It isn't coming.
A lofty goal which I find hard to believe will happen. Of course now that the new software engineer millionaires have pushed all of the poor people out of SF - they can start making fibre demands on their ISP (that's sarcasm btw). Even better - Organic Fibre !!!
https://gimletmedia.com/episod...
The state proposes to steal a whole bunch of money and then spend this to deploy a city-wide information network so that it can, among other things, brainwash more children.
You'd have to be a socialist to describe this as "a ray of light".