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.

Comments

So everyone can access the San Fran shit map?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:So everyone can access the San Fran shit map?

[TWX]

If you have a friend that lives in SF, then as long as the friend is on the western side of the city, Oakland. You'll need to set up a microwave link though, and hope that it isn't too foggy any given day.

Re: So everyone can access the San Fran shit map?

[sycodon]

Most American Cites made a deal with the devil and gave monopoly status to some cable company, precluding competition, even from the city itself.

Re: So everyone can access the San Fran shit map?

[whoever57]

The State of California outlawed such monopoly agreements.

Re: So everyone can access the San Fran shit map?

[HornWumpus]

SF is altering the deal. Comcast should pray they don't alter it any further.

Re:So everyone can access the San Fran shit map?

[hackel]

ACs always think in black and white. Thanks for living up to your reputation!

Re:So everyone can access the San Fran shit map?

[whoever57]

Eastern.

The person in Oakland needs to be on the western side of Oakland, while the person in SF needs to be on the eastern side of SF. Western SF looks out over the ocean.

Re: So everyone can access the San Fran shit map?

[Slashdot Junky]

Comcast probably will stop this just as the Private Sector keeps doing when the municipalities attempt to build out infrastructure in much the same way and for much the same reason.

Re:So everyone can access the San Fran shit map?

[KingBenny]

it's a pledge ... not a face as for the piss ... from what little i've seen the prosperity of a city is in direct correlation with the number of homeless and piss in the streets ... well that's what it looks like i'm sure no one ever did the statistic .. closest city here (read : big town with city allures is VERY clean compared to a decade ago ... no homeless no piss, no dealers ... ... also 90% of cafés closed, lots of empty housing and many many storefronts -for hire- ) so ... the 'dark economy' got cleared , now there's no one buying nikes, ordering bottles or eating steak talk about simple yin-yang duality

Re: So everyone can access the San Fran shit map?

[therealbev]

But economic interests keep the monopoly thriving. A competing cable company would have to run new cable, which is why we have to pay Charter $65/month for a 30KBs internet connection (no TV, no phone). I'll open a vein in a warm bath before I pay AT&T a dime.

Bigger priorities

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Bigger priorities

[Anonymous Coward]

You’re dealing with a group of people who think that Amazon Key is a great thing. This is why you get wildly-out-of-touch things like this being proposed over things that would help people who aren’t Sillycon Valley workers.

Re:Bigger priorities

[WoodstockJeff]

> Perhaps they should focus on more basic needs.

Internet is a VERY big need.

How can you convince people that they're living in a utopia if you can't distract them from reality? In fact, Internet is VITAL making things better!

Re:Bigger priorities

[turkeyfish]

Best not fix the roads as it only encourages people to spew more carbon dioxide into the air. California is already breaking record temperatures with temperatures over 100 F in late October. In a few years, temperatures in the 120-130 range will be common in much of Southern California.

Re:Bigger priorities

[TWX]

Before that it was AOL, this is nothing new.

Re:Bigger priorities

[TWX]

I found the people in Paris were a lot worse than the people in San Francisco.

As for getting from Point-A to Point-B, the subway is fairly effective, and the actual city is so geographically small that walking works fairly well too.

Re:Bigger priorities

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop supporting Democrats and Republicans and start supporting candidates who actually act in accordance with your values.

Precisely why I voted Trump. He is against both those parties. He's the closest thing we've had to an Independent in a long, long time.

Re:Bigger priorities

[drew_kime]

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.

Governments have lots of people in them. They're actually capable of doing more than one thing at a time.

Re:Bigger priorities

[jellomizer]

In many ways having public internet available is a big thing and a first step to eliminating such problems.
For the homeless access to the internet may be used to help find family and connections to help them out.
They are internet apps that point out where pot holes are and where to fix them...

Plus in general it can make sure more services are online, cutting down the expense of government agencies paying for call centers to deal with problems and forms.

Re: Bigger priorities

[sound vision]

With all the talk about "Silicon Valley", it's important to remember this is happening in communities all across the country. The SF area hardly has a monopoly on homeless people, and the tech industry hardly has a monopoly on ignorant people.

Re:Bigger priorities

[drinkypoo]

Governments have lots of people in them. They're actually capable of doing more than one thing at a time.

Don't you mean not doing them? Because San Francisco's streets are awful all the time, and it seems like there is a healthy dose of skepticism here that they will actually pull off this fiber plan.

Re:Bigger priorities

[schnell]

Governments have lots of people in them. They're actually capable of doing more than one thing at a time.

The bottleneck is not and has never been the spare time of bureaucrats. The problem is a limited amount of money.

Go take a walk through the Tenderloin and tell me that those people's problem is crappy cable upload speeds.

I love San Francisco, but I'm pretty sure there are much better ways for the city to spend its money. Fixing the roads, solving the homeless/drug addict problem or creating affordable housing come to mind immediately. Every dollar spent on this fiber project is a dollar that did not go to one of the above.

Re:Bigger priorities

[thinkwaitfast]

Ross Perot

Re:Bigger priorities

[HornWumpus]

If money was going to solve homelessness, SF would have done it. Google 'Homeless industrial complex'.

Want to 'fix' homelessness, legalize 'tombstone drugs' and find a way to legally commit the batshit.

Chlorfentonal could defacto do the first, fingers crossed. The second is just a tough problem (when viewed through the historic lens of mental health laws being used in police states).

Personally, I think we just _give_ pharmaceutical hard drugs away, but in places (plural, don't want it to grow to the size of LA) we want the homeless to congregate. Empty shitty places, good day's hike away from anyplace, they'll still get their on their own. Build them shacks, supply them with scrap lumber, a water faucet and nutraloaf. They'll stay there as long as they get free poison. You'll want the person running the dispensary armed, just so grizzly bears, cougars and wolves don't get too many of the junkies. It's just the lowest cost option. Standing rehab option for them, but few will take it, those that do, will be ready.

Re:Bigger priorities

[MachineShedFred]

People will still make the trips - there aren't millions of people driving on roads just to drive on them because they filled a pothole. They have shit to do. If the most direct route is all fucked up, they'll just do it in a less efficient way to avoid roads that are garbage and harm their vehicles. By not fixing the roads, you're pushing that traffic into neighborhoods where kids are playing and dogs are being walked..

Won't you think of the children? Why are you trying to kill those children's pets?

(See, I can make astounding leaps of logic too. Stop trying to run over children and dogs.)

Re:Bigger priorities

[phantomfive]

Well, the food was good. The people were horrible.

I do say, you're a real charmer yourself.

Re:Bigger priorities

[MachineShedFred]

You would think so. And yet, very basic things still do not get done.

Re:Bigger priorities

[sfcat]

Go take a walk through the Tenderloin and tell me that those people's problem is crappy cable upload speeds.

I love San Francisco, but I'm pretty sure there are much better ways for the city to spend its money. Fixing the roads, solving the homeless/drug addict problem or creating affordable housing come to mind immediately. Every dollar spent on this fiber project is a dollar that did not go to one of the above.

You must not have lived in SF for very long. The Tenderloin today is much more safe than it used to be. 10-15 years ago to walk across the Tenderloin you had to know where the "track" (where the street walkers work, there were 2, one for females and one for everyone else) was to avoid that and additionally had to know the state of little Saigon's gangs to know if there was a turf war going on at the time. Today on those same streets you walk past expensive bars and restaurants.

If you are whining about the state of SF today, then you are clearly one of the folks changing the city and not necessarily for the better. Half the cities nightclubs have closed and almost all the artists have been forced to move out. Many of those homeless you don't like, likely used to have housing in the TL and were forced out to make way for you and those that moved to SF when you did. Basically, you are turning SF into Manhattan which is fine but we already had a Manhattan and now we no longer have an SF. Cities have always changed and SF is no different, but this time around most of the interesting things that made the city different for decades are all being removed at once. What do you think that's going to do to the area long term? Somehow I doubt it will be all gravy but as long as you are getting yours right?

Re:Bigger priorities

[sfcat]

Oops, replied to the wrong comment so the quote is wrong. Apologies to the GP. I stand by the rest of the comment though.

Re: Bigger priorities

[SimonInOz]

Sadly he seems to be against everyone who isnâ(TM)t Donald Trump.

Re:Bigger priorities

[lsatenstein]

Fibre is really cheaper to install than copper, and offers the bandwidth that the city needs.
For example, the future will be with online water meters, electric meters, gas meters, and alarm / heating / ac systems all controlled remotely. Have a fire in an condo building, be able to poweroff the building rapidly.

Of course AT&T will want to sue the city because it wants to keep that communication system to itself.

The coming generation is going to have to decide -- big corps control the internet, or control by cities.
Cities tend to be "by the people, for the people", vs the big corporations.

Re:Bigger priorities

[HornWumpus]

Google 'nutraloaf'. It's used to punish convicts.

Nobody would ride a freight, jump off where it slows, hike a day to eat nutraloaf except for junkies.

If the dope is good, they will agree to getting spayed/neutered. They're junkies.

Re:Bigger priorities

[HornWumpus]

Overstating the case doesn't help. Alcohol is legal and cheap, there are still drunks on the street. Batshit people exist. Chumps give to panhandlers.

Do you want to live next door to the junkies? They have to go somewhere, since the mayor's house it out...

Key word here is "pledged"

[jodido]

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.

Re:Key word here is "pledged"

[yodleboy]

Exactly...every other city that tries municipal broadband was just as sincere. I don't see anything here that shows SF has a solution to the ISP lobby. Although this being California, there is every possibility that there will be an ISP subsidy OR that the ISPs will be some sort of "partner" and get kickbacks...

Re:Key word here is "pledged"

[Luthair]

You missed (c) the city will pay the money, but the corporations won't actually roll out fibre.

Re:Key word here is "pledged"

[Luthair]

I'm guessing you mean US city? Amsterdam famously wired the city - https://arstechnica.com/tech-p...

Interesting point with Amsterdam is they wired the city but do not operate an ISP

Re:Key word here is "pledged"

[swb]

Interesting point with Amsterdam is they wired the city but do not operate an ISP

Which is pretty much how municipal fiber ought to work.

1) City forms wholly owned non-profit
2) City underwrites bonds for fiber optic network
3) City contracts with some network operator to run fiber non-profit at fixed profit margin, everything else is plowed back into maintenance
4) Contracted network operator is barred from offering any services on fiber optic network
5) Third parties sell ISP or other network services on fiber optic network
6) City government does not offer ISP or other competitive services on fiber optic network, but may operate on network as their own ISP for municipal operations data needs

Contract to operate network is re-bid every 5 years. Non-profit owns all network operations knowledge, operations and systems.

Re:Key word here is "pledged"

[JackieBrown]

I'm guessing you mean US city?

Based on the thread context and the article everyone is responding to, of course they mean "US city." Why would you even need to ask that?

I guess at least you didn't write USian city...

Re: Key word here is "pledged"

[corychristison]

I live in Saskatchewan, Canada. The entire population of the Province is about 1.1 Million.

We have a major telecom company that is owned by our Provincial Government.

About 10-12 years ago they started rolling out Fibre across the province. Starting with the 4 biggest communities. My city (of 35,000 people) was one of those 4 communities.

I've had ubiquitous access to fiber since 2010 or so in my city. Needless to say the consistent speed and reliability is amazing. From what I've heard from friends that work for the ISP, is that their customer support costs have gone down. Since it's more reliable, faster, and more stable, people have less to call and complain about.

The plans lack a bit. Fastest speed we can get is 260Mbps down / 60Mbps up. And it costs about $200/mo (Canadian Dollars)... but still a far cry from the old ADSL network that capped out at 25Mbps down/5Mbps up.

Re:Key word here is "pledged"

[JackieBrown]

That was his second option. You missed half his post

Re:Key word here is "pledged"

[TWX]

One of the biggest stumbling blocks are the landlords and what undoubtedly will be objections to losing profit-making square footage to telecommunications rooms that inevitably will be required in buildings.

I've had to do work in residential copper phone rooms. It was bad when it was just the telephone company. It got worse when the cable TV providers got space. For old, sufficiently large buildings it will be even worse, as the equipment for even a PON system requires space. That's not accounting for the fiber equivalent of a neighborhood exchange or central office either.

Re:Key word here is "pledged"

[nine-times]

Second, the city pays the private ISP's to build the network--in other words, a giant handout.

Right. This is sort of what happened in NYC. They paid Verizon to put FiOS everywhere. Verizon took the money and didn't fully deliver. They greatly expanded their FiOS coverage, but not to the extent they were supposed to.

Re: Key word here is "pledged"

[TWX]

That plan is probably dictated by a combination of the edge service provider's connection to the backbone service provider, and the edge service provider's willingness to spend money on their distribution network in the form of switches and optics and the topology chosen for the fiber plant.

As a commercial customer, I've worked with both Centurylink and COX for fiber networks. CL uses a hub-and-spoke topology in my market that they inherited when they took over the old phone company. Each of my sites has a twelve-strand OM1 cable with two strands used, CL provides a handoff with their Metro Optical switch, and I then take service from that to my service entrance switch. CL needs four rack units, three for the LIU, one for the switch, which also acts as their demarcation point. Upsides, I'm the only customer on this spoke, so their equipment at my premises only has to meet the needs of the service I have subscribed to, and arguably if their MPLS network were configured for it they wouldn't even have to put a switch in my sites, just handing off at the coupler panel. Downside, running a spoke network is expensive, from every CO or NX they have to have a dedicated pair of strands to my site, either physically splicing in from backbone fiber running through the city, or else having a dedicated cable all of the way.

COX uses a ring-topology with mixed customers on the rings. They have something like 24 strands in, 24 strands out. They're using some kind of PON variant even for their own 2U switch, so they have an LIU for the raw fiber, then they pass through some kind of PON filter in what looks like a second LIU that directs the specific wavelength to their switch to the two 40G optics for the ring, but lets the rest of the wavelengths pass through. Also because of the topology they have around 8U of battery. Their switches are DC, so the rectifier powers the batteries and then the switches are powered off of that setup. Upside, the topology is a lot simpler, they don't have to run as much fiber except where they have to cut-in from the trunk cables to enter the customer premises, but the downsides are they use ~12U of rack space and that the rings can be broken and lead to isolated segments if customers premises issues at multiple locations impact the rings. It also requires us to provide site access to their techs to diagnose ring problems, so we have to do off-hours support a lot more than with CL.

From a workflow point of view I like the Centurylink setup better. Three rack units is easy to find for them, and since they're just running an off-the-shelf Metro Optical switch, it gets plugged into the same power redundancy as my own equipment. By contrast the COX setup uses a lot of room, allows for the sites to be taken out by something as simple as one customer with multiple sites downing the equipment, requires expensive switches and optics for the 40G shared backbone everywhere they have a service-entrance, and since those switches are DC-only, if the battery and rectifier fail (which they have) I can't bypass around them to power up the service entrance switch until a tech can replace the defective unit.

Not knowing the engineering choices made in your municipal network I cannot say what they've done. Personally I'd rather pay more for the fiber now and less for the equipment, knowing that the equipment will have to be changed-out on a somewhat regular basis as demand for more throughput compels it.

Re:Key word here is "pledged"

[drinkypoo]

That was his second option. You missed half his post

I'm quite sure that Luthair's intent was to suggest that they wouldn't even try to build out the network, like when we gave the telcos $250M to build out the DSL network so that we could all get DSL, which they didn't even try to do. Instead, they handed the money out to executives as record bonuses. jodido's example included "some public interest group" suing, which is almost certainly not what Luthair meant. Your reading comprehension seems to be below the junior high school level.

Re:Key word here is "pledged"

[StormReaver]

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.

It can be done, and in a way that short-circuits the entrenched monopolies:

https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...

Re: Key word here is "pledged"

[Luthair]

$200 a month is pretty steep, in Ontario we have access to Teksavvy with 250/20 for $90 unlimited.

Re: Key word here is "pledged"

[CanadianMacFan]

That TekSavvy plan is for cable though, not fibre, so you can't compare the two prices. TekSavvy doesn't have any plans over fibre yet, at least in Ontario.

Re:Key word here is "pledged"

[TWX]

At least with a farm it's straightforward. Trench in the right-of-way along the roadway or in the easements. Where trenching isn't practical like crossing asphalt or concrete paved roads, directional-bore. Drop Christy vaults at intervals or bigger manhole-access vaults if expansion is needed. Fiber can go miles and miles, so knowing the route to the customer, determine if it's necessary to build a local exchange with power that could potentially service multiple farms in an area, attempt to position it where it's the final powered-hop before the handoff to the customer. otherwise there's usually little if any infrastructure to have to worry about damaging along the way.

In a city there's trouble with easements, rights-of-way, working around existing infrastructure, working in congested areas, and the need to remedy problems as they occur, and that's before dealing with pathways in the building (who likes pulling fiber through the side of the elevator shaft?) and equipment space.

Re:Key word here is "pledged"

[MachineShedFred]

I wish it was only $250M. I think you're off by a few orders of magnitude.

Re: Key word here is "pledged"

[MachineShedFred]

Why does it matter what the physical cabling is, if the latency and bandwidth allocations are similar?

Results are what matter. Specifying 'fiber' just to say it's 'fiber' is silly if the metrics are the same.

Re:Key word here is "pledged"

[spongman]

this is going to be yet another overly-expensive bungled municipal utility project. ask anyone in neighboring San Bruno county how they like their monopoly cable service and cable ISP? want high speed internet in San Bruno? SBC is your _only_ choice.

Re: Key word here is "pledged"

[spongman]

yay, municipal monopoly rip-off. tax the punters for a crappy service.

Re: Key word here is "pledged"

[slimjim8094]

They wouldn't be the same bandwidth though, which is literally in the summary:

...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...

Fiber is typically symmetric. Even FiOS, which is fairly lousy as an ISP in many respects, is symmetric on all plans. My folks have their "gigabit" plan - it's only 940Mbps actually, but it is symmetric and does hit that speed even in real-world use. That's one of the nice things about fiber, actually - you have the bandwidth, might as well do something with it

Re: Key word here is "pledged"

[CanadianMacFan]

The problem with cable is that you share your bandwidth with your neighbours so that when it's busy you don't get your maximum downloads. I'm on a slower cable connection than what was mentioned (30Mbps, TekSavvy in Ontario) and there are some times it seems quick to respond and at others it's slow. Fibre isn't shared with the neighbours so you always have the maximum bandwidth available.

Re: Key word here is "pledged"

[corychristison]

Shaw (coax network) has plans up to 250Mbps. They have a promo on for 150Mbps down / 15Mbps with a 1TB monthly cap if you sign a 2 year contract. The first year is $50/mo, and the second year is $70/mo (from what I gather this is only available in SK, everywhere else pays $70/mo for both years).

The benefit of Sasktel is there is no monthly cap, it is a true fibre optic network with the optical cable run right into your home (no ethernet last mile crap). It is truely unlimited, though you need the business plan if you want to operate any kind of server for non-personal use. Their commercial plans are only like 10-15% more vs their residential plans.

Re: Key word here is "pledged"

[corychristison]

Very informative post. I'm not familiar with Sasktel's topology. Perhaps it's something I could research.

Re: Key word here is "pledged"

[corychristison]

Ok so I just double checked and I was incorrect. The $200 plan I was thinking was for the Business plan.

For residential it is $139/mo, but only includes half the upload speed (30Mbps).

Re: Key word here is "pledged"

[corychristison]

Ok so I just double checked and I was incorrect. The $200 plan I was thinking was for the Business plan.

For residential it is $139/mo, but only includes half the upload speed (30Mbps).

Still $50 more per month than TekSavvy, but again, it's true Fiber to the premesis.

Re:Key word here is "pledged"

[Lord Flipper]

Which is pretty much how municipal fiber ought to work. 1) City forms wholly owned non-profit 2) City underwrites bonds for fiber optic network

You clearly understand how a muni system could/shoulfd be set up in order to actually work (be viable down the line).

My wife happens to be a counsel for a group of cable/telecoms in California, and she got a call from a USF professor who is on SF's Blue Ribbon Panel that has simply voted on the "idea." This is worlds away from anything approaching a done deal, for one, and secondly, the nature of the "Panel" member's questions show that they have not even gotten as far thinking about Step 1 in your helpful list of the method for setting a utility, like this "proposed" one, up.

I'm rather amazed to see slashdot folks looking at this municipal vaporware as something that has been, or will be put in place. Pipe dreams, people, move along now...

Re:Key word here is "pledged"

[swb]

It's funny, but I think municipal fiber is more likely to fail because of the left than the right.

The left is inclined to see it as a service that can be subsidized for poor people and a giveaway for organized labor (they will all have to belong to IBEW or one of the telecom unions), which makes seem exorbitantly expensive. And the left will also have trouble not giving into their urge to use it to control "objectionable" speech.

The right mostly objects to it because some business or other already has a monopoly on the service and doesn't want to give up rent-seeking income.

The analogy I always harp on is that municipal fiber really ought not be any different than municipal roadways. Government funds them and "owns" them, but mostly it doesn't provide transportation services or any other economic activity on the roads themselves. About the only major difference is that government does do a lot of road maintenance, but even then major road work beyond potholes is usually done by private paving contractors.

Around here anyway, municipal fiber would be EXACTLY like the local water utility. It's run to be self-funding (ie, water fees pay for the water system) and organizationally it's not a city department. The only difference with a municipal fiber utility as I described is that the water utility management isn't farmed out to a third party to staff and run.

I suppose for a fiber utility, that wouldn't really be necessary but I think it's a reasonable gimme to the capitalists, probably provides some kind access to actual networking expertise for running a network like this and ultimately the fixed profit margin after costs probably enforces some kind of operational discipline.

In my mind it's so fucking obvious I can't believe more cities haven't gone for my proposed structure -- it's minimally crowding of private enterprise (only really squeezing monopolists), self-funding and access to dirt-cheap bandwidth likely has a lot of innovation potential, especially if provider-level access to the network isn't really expensive -- ie, a business with six buildings could become their own private "ISP" and rent low-level fiber access for interconnection or other purposes.

Re:Key word here is "pledged"

[JackieBrown]

Your reading comprehension seems to be below the junior high school level.

That's a cute comment. You almost made it through the whole post. without going there. I am really proud of you.

Re: Key word here is "pledged"

[MachineShedFred]

It depends on the fiber rollout plan. Even if they are actually putting fiber strands into each structure, and each apartment of each multi-tenant structure, then you still have to worry about sharing the back-haul on the other end of where the fiber terminates (the ISP's peering, etc.) - it's not like they can just give you a fiber pair direct into a carrier switch.

You're always sharing with someone.

Is SF as bad as Seattle?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Read the Weasel Words

[Zorro]

"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.

Re:Read the Weasel Words

[penandpaper]

Unicorn power == natural gas... It is getting us off oil you insensitive clod!

Re:Read the Weasel Words

[bluegutang]

San Francisco was never reduced to rubble by an earthquake. In the 1906 quake, more than 90% of the damage was caused by resulting fires, not the earthquake itself. And modern building codes are well equipped to deal with both earthquakes and fires, so it certainly wouldn't be reduced to rubble by an earthquake now.

Re:Read the Weasel Words

[Anonymous Coward]

They may have buildings robust to the natural disasters but San Francisco will be left a smoldering pile of rubble by the one thing they have no defense against: Leftist ideals. They will be the future Detroit. Having gone so smug from being built up by a successful industry that they lost focus and the pressures that drive people.

Mark my words. San Francisco will be like Detroit in ~20 years.
 

Re:Read the Weasel Words

[TWX]

So like, in theory there's no difference between theory and reality?

Re:Read the Weasel Words

[TWX]

I doubt it. SF doesn't depend on manufacturing whose skillset is developed from initially unskilled labor through on-the-job training. The kind of employment driving the ridiculous housing prices requires the employee to bring skill in with them.

A major contribution to Detroit's decline was that it was not difficult to set-up shop elsewhere, then close the Detroit facility. The vast majority of the individual tasks for assembling cars are simple, so a new population that has never built cars can be trained to build cars without a lot of initial costs and without having to attract a lot of experienced workers to that new population center. On top of that the design work doesn't have to be done where the assembly is done either, so the skilled jobs could be in nicer places to live.

This is already a lot of the model for San Francisco. The big tech employers have most of their manufacturing elsewhere. The work that is done in SF and Silicon Valley requires one's brain much more than one's hands, and the companies set up shop there because it's generally a nice place to live, they want to live there despite the costs.

Re:Read the Weasel Words

[drinkypoo]

And modern building codes are well equipped to deal with both earthquakes and fires, so it certainly wouldn't be reduced to rubble by an earthquake now.

Sea level rise will come along and remove all the portions of the city built on landfill. And no, modern building codes are not well-equipped to deal with fires. We are still overusing flammable materials in building. Also, San Francisco is chock-full of old buildings which are made out of wood and literally touching one another. It's just a firestorm waiting to happen, like most cities on the planet.

Re:Read the Weasel Words

[geekmux]

San Francisco was never reduced to rubble by an earthquake. In the 1906 quake, more than 90% of the damage was caused by resulting fires, not the earthquake itself.

If the cause of the fires was in fact the earthquake, then you're splitting hairs here. We certainly don't segregate wind damage from water damage when talking about hurricanes.

And modern building codes are well equipped to deal with both earthquakes and fires, so it certainly wouldn't be reduced to rubble by an earthquake now.

The 1906 quake measured 7.8 on the scale. Not even close to our strongest quakes on record. Regardless of code improvements, the damage to such a densely populated area if a 9+ were to hit would be considerable. Not to mention cost. LA saw tens of billions of dollars in damage from a 6.7 quake in the 90s.

Re:Read the Weasel Words

[epine]

Not to mention cost.

I live further up the west coast, and the probability of "the big one" we all fear is about 0.3% per year (which does not increase much as years go by without such an event happening; there's a whole chapter devoted to the Big Three statistical metaphors in Algorithms to Live By; fractal history approximates no history to a first order).

Furthermore, a big chunk of the "cost" that so worries you is bringing all of the damaged infrastructure into alignment with modern building code and building practice. Sure, it's an unplanned cash outlay (from the category of "unplanned" events that get incessant airplay), but a big chunk of that outlay amounts to capital investment, under duress though it may be.

One can even wonder whether a little creative destruction in the Bay area wouldn't help to ameliorate the Bay-area housing crisis.

Never waste a good crisis.

10 Good Things We Owe To The Black Death

The bottom line here is that ecologists have long recognized that humanities global footprint is a lot better with dense urbanization than without.

It does stack a lot of eggs into some fragile baskets (the damn things barely last a century or few), but this tends to go hand-in-hand—in the least brotherly sense—with an unimaginable concentration of wealth, much of it encoded in 1s and 0s, for which the building code is global redundancy, interconnected by such fat pipes that the restoration bandwidth required to salvage a large, badly shaken urban economy is on the order of a few Netflix-hours.

Methinks the lady has a soft spot for her disaster porn.

AND here comes the lobby

[Calydor]

The big ISPs will sue SF into the ground to stop this from happening, just like they do to anyone else that tries it.

Re:AND here comes the lobby

[turkeyfish]

Perhaps this time the city will ask for a jury trial.

At least it's not more gold leaf for city hall.

[tlambert]

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...

Bad at problem solving

[MightyYar]

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.

Re:Bad at problem solving

[stabiesoft]

Except teachers have been neutered. I asked a friend who teaches how he handles someone that won't stop texting during class. He said he asks for their phone, they probably refuse. Then he can have security come and remove the kid to the VP. The VP then will often return the kid, with the phone back to class with the message we will handle it later. I was in shock. He said the parents complain when a students phone is taken even though it is returned at the end of class. Personally I think schools should deploy those jammers during class. Problem solved.

Re:Bad at problem solving

[Bengie]

Fiber doesn't require power. The ISP can easily tell when large numbers of people are without power and who they are. This is very valuable information for the power company during an outage. One power company claimed to have reduced the costs to fixing their power by 50% and reduced outage times by something like 20%. In the end, they saved the local community enough money IN ONE YEAR from power outages and reduced costs to pay for the entire cost of the fiber network. Fiber internet is so cheap, it pays you.

As for health care. Local hospitals over here are now offering remote doctor visits over the Internet, but it requires high speed Internet access. These are 24/7 hour services with a near zero wait time that cost about $30, except no insurance required. Anyone in our state has access to this service. It's saving local residents tons of money all the while making it more convenient than a midnight trip to the ER for your child's fever. This became available shortly after fiber internet was deployed and the local ISP had to upgrade to multi-100Gb trunk, which allowed the hospital network to start offering such services.

Low cost fiber Internet is making a huge different in my local community.

Re:Bad at problem solving

[MightyYar]

The ISP can easily tell when large numbers of people are without power and who they are

Can you dig up a reference to this claim? My google-fu skills are weak and I cannot find corroboration to your story about the fiber optic lines being paid for in a year.

Local hospitals over here

Again, I'd like more information. I've heard about this idea before but would love to read about how it works in real life.

Re:Bad at problem solving

[Luthair]

Seems like you could have each classroom with its dedicated wifi access point and give the teacher a switch to toggle internet access, limit it to sites, etc. Doesn't help with cellular connections obviously.

Re:Bad at problem solving

[BoRegardless]

You got it wrong. Fiber is needed to give Google and advertisers more bandwidth and thus income.

I see one technology site that has a short article with a few paragraphs I want to read and it has over 2 dozen connections to URLs for tracking purposes.

Re:Bad at problem solving

[Shogun37]

Bitcoin mining by IoT bots? Massive torrent hosts? Goatse sent to all politicians?

INB4: Americans HATING it.

[Anonymous Coward]

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

This is the great leap forward?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:This is the great leap forward?

[turkeyfish]

You make a good point. However, the days where the US is the world leader are rapidly coming to a close. Part of the reason for this can seen by numerous other responses in this thread demonstrating that people would rather find a reason to bitch and make wisecracks rather than do anything positive to keep up with our foreign competitors. In Korea and Japan one can purchase 10GBit/s internet speeds for less than $50/month. This year China will lay 10 times more fiber than the US, while also building more high speed rail, more wind and solar power, increase their exports to US and the rest of the world at about 2.5 times the pace of the US, All the while, the supposed "talent" in the US will busy putting their money into fattening the wallets of Comcast and AT&T execs.

Re:This is the great leap forward?

[Anonymous Coward]

Great post and on point.

Now that Trump and his Nationalist agenda are in effect, the US has handed off "World Leader" status to China. All over the "First World", the US is getting bypassed on many fronts, whether it is transportation, telecommunications, health care, energy, education, etc;

The current Authoritarian bent of the Republican party will ensure the continued downward spiral of the US, and the ascension of China and Europe. But maybe that is a good thing...

Re:This is the great leap forward?

[jezwel]

You'll still be world leader in military might for quite a while yet, so I guess starting a war pretty soon is on the cards. Probably near the end of your current administration so that they can use the old cliche "don't change government in a time of war".

Re:This is the great leap forward?

[Bengie]

I can't even get a job without Internet access, unless I plan on being paid cache or farm help. Nearly every single store in my city require applying online, no walk-ins. Having the Internet is like having a car or phone. Technically you don't "need" it.

Cost

[ChrisMaple]

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.

Re:Cost

[turkeyfish]

Hardly out of line with the average US debt.

Re:Cost

[MightyYar]

Infrastructure is the one use of debt that I approve of. I don't know how much of SF's debt is for infrastructure bonds and how much is for things like underfunded pensions or debt for recurring expenses, but debt to build out communications infrastructure is OK.

Re:Cost

[Solandri]

That's city debt. That's in addition to state and national debt (and personal debt) owed by every SF citizen. In terms of city debt, SF ranks near the bottom.

Fix the REAL fucking problem.

[geekmux]

"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.

Re:Fix the REAL fucking problem.

[blahplusplus]

the corruption that creates and sustains that shit.

If you and the rest of america weren't so uneducated and ignorant you could all choose a correct political ideology, aka it's not right wing. The more right wing your country, the more you tell the world you don't understand you're being fucked by private power.

Crisis of democracy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYFxtNgOeiI

Our brains are much worse at reality and thinking than thought. See the manufacturing consent videos when you get the time.

Science on reasoning:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ

Protectionism for the rich and big business by state intervention, radical market interference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY#t=349

Wikileaks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABDiHspTJww&feature=youtu.be

Manufacturing consent:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwU56Rv0OXM

https://vimeo.com/39566117

  Other important info

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/10/michael-hudson-on-parasitic-financial-capitalism.html

Michael Hudson

The real news

The Citibank memo

Citigroup memo

http://www.rdwolff.com/

Richard wolf on capitalism

US distribution of wealth

https://imgur.com/a/FShfb

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

  This is a project of american empire, aka the rich (big business) vs the rest of mankind.

The grand chessboard

The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives

Grand chessboard user review

Reddit and intelligence agencies

  Wikileaks -- Reddit and intelligence agencies

Re:Fix the REAL fucking problem.

[psmoot]

Amen. The straightforward way to address this is to allow any and all comers who want to provide internet access in SF (or anywhere) free reign to build and sell their product. If fiber to the home is so valuable, someone will be greedy enough (read: "will spot an underserved market opportunity") to want the easy bucks. And we all win.

Deeply practical....bullshit

[argStyopa]

"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.

Re:Deeply practical....bullshit

[Areyoukiddingme]

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.

Maybe they heard that municipal broadband is frequently profitable after a few years. Given their track record, San Francisco will probably manage to be one of the few that isn't...

Please, explain

[Brett Buck]

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?

Re:Please, explain

[TeknoHog]

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?

I agree with the general idea. I used to have a 1 MB/s ADSL for years, as I didn't need anything more. However, at some point my building was connected to a fiber network, and the new provider offered speeds starting from 10 meg, for a lower price. So it was a no brainer, in fact I took the next level of 50 meg as it was only a few euros more per month, and it helps with the occasional bulk downloads. I've since moved to another fiber-connected building with better wiring, so I get Ethernet from the wall with lower prices still. (I kept my 50 meg level, paying about 15 eur/month. The maximum they offer is 1 GB/s, and I see no way in providing that extensively in practice.)

Anecdata aside, my point: a faster connection is often more reliable, and possibly even cheaper than the slow alternative. When you get proper wiring instead of POTS, there's little point in providing the slow rates any more.

Re:Please, explain

[Areyoukiddingme]

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?

Because we personally already have uses for gigabit Internet access, and the more widespread it is, the cheaper it is.

Also, this is truly a case of "if you build it, they will come." Youtube did not exist in the era of POTS modems. Neither did Netflix. Now video streaming is considered an industry in its own right, with multiple multi-billion dollar companies. In 2000, everybody thought an on-demand streaming service was nearly impossible. Cable companies had tried, and given up.

We don't know what ubiquitous gigabit service would enable because it doesn't exist yet. These things have to evolve.

Re:Please, explain

[HornWumpus]

Nobody ever thought it was impossible. It was just going to take a few years and everybody knew it.

What % of the time is your current broadband insufficient? Mine is INXS to the extent I don't pay $10/month to double it to 200 down.

What % of the time was your 2000 broadband insufficient? IIRC I had 10 down in 2000, sucked, but already far better than dialup. Main problem then was backbone/server saturation during peak hours.

In my time, I've run a small business on a 10 Mbps unswitched coax local network. (and we liked it, the network anyhow.)

Re:Please, explain

[jonwil]

I am on an ADSL2+ connection here in Australia and I am currently syncing at 8.7mbps downstream and 1mbps upstream and I can actually GET those speeds or something close to it.

Whilst it would be nice to have something a little faster for those times when I am downloading large files, I have no complaints about either the speeds I get or the service I get from my ISP.

However, according to the map for the NBN in Australia, I am apparently going to get HFC (by far the worst fixed-line broadband technology ever invented) so my internet will probably actually get WORSE :(

Re:Please, explain

[Bengie]

"Sufficient" is subjective. I don't like waiting. Bought a new game on Steam? I don't want to wait more than 60 seconds for the install and the game better well load in 10 seconds.

Re:Please, explain

[HornWumpus]

So you say, but you likely haven't spent the money to get a business grade fiber bundle (w SLA).

Steam won't download content at my current max speed, not during the day anyhow.

IMHO 'Sufficient' doesn't mean I don't want more, sometimes. Just that I won't spend the money, tradeoffs, as always.

Re:Please, explain

[Bengie]

Actually, I do, just no SLA. P2P self-healing fiber ring strait back to the CO with a "best effort" guarantee. Essentially it means I won't get refunded for minor glitches, but I can call in for anything less than perfect. They tell me I should NEVER see latency or dropped packets and encourage me to call and complain if I notice anything. I called in on a 10ms increase in ping and they fixed it in less than an hour. I've downloaded and seeded torrents to 99.9% of my max bandwidth with less than 1Mb/s difference between min/max bandwidth for nearly 8 hours 4pm-11pm Tuesday night. $50/m for 150/150.

I was told by their network admin that their internal network can handle 100% of all customers using 100% of their provisioned bandwidth at the same time at line rate. Their trunk is 6x 95% percentile and can be increased an addition 10x on a moment's notice to Level 3 just in case.

Nearly all Steam CDNs max out my bandwidth, but I still choose local CDNs to be a good netizen.

Re:Biased article from nitwit

[MightyYar]

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".

Re:Won't make a difference

[MightyYar]

I live in a neighborhood with shitty rat-eaten copper in 100+ year old homes. We have FiOS. I've helped neighbors with their internet. It's a simple combination of sending TV signals over existing coax, WiFi, repeaters (WiFi and powerline), and even the occasional CAT6 cable. One nice thing about old houses is balloon framing! You can get all the way down to the foundation from almost anywhere in the wall. From what I remember of SF (spent a lot of time out there in the early 2000s), there is a ton of prewar housing built after the earthquake and a lot of it is balloon framing. Just cut a hole in the plaster, drop a fishing weight down the hole and pull up your wire from the basement.

Mistaking the means & ends

[Wrath0fb0b]

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).

Re:Mistaking the means & ends

[drinkypoo]

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).

And I get 300GB at 5/1 over microwave for $99/mo and it is by far the cheapest thing available where I live. In California. Within a rifle shot of homes with both DSL and cable.

Re:Mistaking the means & ends

[Wrath0fb0b]

And so the goal should be to get you high speed internet, medium be damned.

Also, what kind of rifle? I know some folks with a .50cal that will easily clear 1 mile, that's a long run for DSL :-)

Re:Mistaking the means & ends

[drinkypoo]

Also, what kind of rifle? I know some folks with a .50cal that will easily clear 1 mile, that's a long run for DSL :-)

At the kind of downstream speeds I'm getting from my WISP, even old-school ADSL will do somewhere around 12,000 feet. But since they managed to put the DSLAM into the box on the street corner, you can really be anywhere. That costs a lot more than just having a bunch of punchdown blocks in there, so they like to avoid doing it, but any time they have to replace one they tend to put in the good stuff, which means DSL arrives in your neighborhood. Some friends of mine were waiting indefinitely until someone ran into the box in their neighborhood, and then a month later they were able to order DSL.

Re:I think you have the terms confused.

[Calydor]

In what world do people not die when they are murdered?

It is in direct alignment for telecoms to not upgr

[llZENll]

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.

Re:I think you have the terms confused.

[Oswald McWeany]

Hollywood.

Guess that makes sense

[OfMiceAndMenus]

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.

Sure I bet it comes with FREE Health Care too.

[hackus]

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.

Congrats San Francisco

[viperidaenz]

I almost feel bad for having gigabit fibre at home.

Longmont, CO beat them to the punch

[werepants]

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.

not so fast

[roc97007]

Pledging is not the same as doing. Other cities have tried to do this and failed.

Re:not so fast

[Bengie]

Political red tape and cheapest bidder does that.

Re:not so fast

[roc97007]

...and lawsuits from the companies who stands to lose revenue from a government-deployed solution. In this particular case, I'd expect Comcast to fight tooth and nail, every teensy step of the way, using every tool in their box, most especially including the courts, to prevent the city from replacing their crappy coax with fiber for the last mile.

One acronym: GAATN

[bill.pev]

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]

Re:This is the great leap forward? Efficiency?

[BoRegardless]

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!

Kudos to San Fran

[Shotgun]

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.

Re:Kudos to San Fran

[spongman]

you obviously don't live in San Bruno, CA, where the only choice for high-speed internet is San Bruno Cable, a government-owned monopoly that provides shitty service for exorbitant prices. third-party cable/fiber providers are banned.

Re:Stolen money

[outlander]

"Taxes are the price we pay for civilization. I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization." - Oliver Wendell Holmes

  In 1927 in the court case of Compañía General de Tabacos de Filipinas v. Collector of Internal Revenue a dissenting opinion was written by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. that included this phrase.

Re:the literal meaning of Utopia

[outlander]

Read Samuel Butler's EREHWON - I think you'll find it enlightening.

Pledge...

[erp_consultant]

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.

Re:Stolen money

[JesseMcDonald]

"Taxes are the price we pay for civilization. I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization." - Oliver Wendell Holmes

That is a remarkably stupid quote. It is completely irrelevant whether you "like" to pay taxes. No one is stopping you or anyone else from "buying civilization" with your own money, if that is what you want. You don't need taxes for that. The purpose of taxes is make other people pay for your idea of "civilization", whether they want it or not.

I personally consider any society which legitimizes taxation to be uncivilized. Buying civilization by imposing taxes on others is a contradiction.

Unlikely - didn't Verizon FiOS promise to NYC?

[ripvlan]

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...

Window lickers. The whoe lot.

[Shogun37]

...And the cost to own or rent in Sin City West just shot up. Again.