ISPs Want Perks Google's Getting in Kansas City > Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once

reply to silbaco

Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once

Well there you have! Silbaco has spoken and fiber networks are not needed at this point.

Everyone can pack up and go home now. Nothing more to see here as he will be sure to reach out to the internet world to let them know when it is ready for fiber.

So you want to put the onus on me for the need, sure thing.

I want to be able to backup all my home computers and servers to the cloud in less then an hour.

I want to be able to watch 5 or more TV's in full 1080p uncompressed video with full Dobly Digital 7.1 sound.

I want to be able to download all seasons of every show I enjoy (legally) within 5 minutes.

I want everything I do on the internet to be instantaneous.

Can I do all those things now? No. You pointing out that many websites or services can't provide what I request only supports my very suggestion that if I cant do those things then the internet needs to keep getting faster, copper is not the future and 1gbps over fiber is a very good start.

Whether or not YOU think the world needs those things has absolutely no bearing on it. You are not the architecture god of the internet and your opinion on what is needed for the world is meaningless (sorry to tell you that being you seem to think so highly of your opinion for what the world needs).

So now that I have proven to you why it is needed, please prove to me how we dont need it and that we should just stay with copper and not advance.

By the way, thanks for taking time away from Intel and AMD to speak with us. I am sure they are in desperate need of your advice on how they shouldnt be making faster, smaller and more energy efficient processors because someone like me can't prove to them I need it based on your personal opinion.

So do I, but at what cost? There is always a cost involved whether it is shared or not. I simply don't trust Google because they have no transparency like a muni would. LUS in Lafayette, LA is an example of a fairly successful muni project that provides fiber to all of the locations that they service and they even haven't seen the need for peer to peer connections above 100mbps for residential customers.

reply to Skippy25
Have you proved why it is needed? I don't think you have. You proved to me why you "wanted" it, not why you "needed" it. A world where we get everything we want would be a great place. That world doesn't exist.

My opinion is meaningless? Okay. Perhaps. But yours is even more so. Because you have not proved why you need faster speeds, only why you want them.

What do AMD and Intel have to do with anything? You sure like to go off topic. But for that matter, do AMD and Intel try to make processors "future proof" or do they try to make them good for current uses, as demanded? I don't see 32 core consumer CPUs out on the market. Sure, we may need them some day and we would love to have them. But they are not needed today, not tomorrow. Just like we 1gbps fiber is not needed today. Not tomorrow....

Oh how silly you are.

So what I view as a need, you view as a want. Are we really going to have this debate? If you really want to get technical, we dont NEED electricty, we dont NEED a highway system and we dont NEED a civilized society. See how stupid your game is?

My AMD and Intel comment was pretty clear. Or at least I thought it was, but let me break it down to you so even a 1st grader can understand. YOU do not get to dictate what is a need or want for anyone other than yourself and those that you are directly in control of (kids). So with that, YOU do not get to say how we should expand for the future and at what pace we do so. So again, stop trying to act as though you get to determine those things.

reply to ltecajun
At what cost?

It is Google's money and if they want to bring a true network and true competition to KC, then that is a savings in my book.

reply to silbaco

reply to Skippy25
Ah. So you can't debate worth a crap, you instead of debating the subject at hand, you debate about me and make petty insults? Interesting.

reply to silbaco

reply to mackey
Our economy needs the internet, or it would collapse. Our economy does not need gigabit internet.

I don't watch netflix, because I don't need it.

It will probably cost less for these companies to do it all at once when the time is right than to have started doing it 10 years ago. Fiber keeps dropping. Deploying it early on was a huge expense, and some of those fiber networks already need upgrading to compete with modern standard fiber deployments.

Don't forget what these companies actually do. TWC and At&t are in telecommunications. Google is a web content provider who is entering the communications industry with a tiny deployment after deployment costs have dropped to a fraction of what they were with TWC and At&t entered the industry. And the fact remains Google is unlikely to ever turn a profit from this service, despite the perks they received. But that is how google operates. They lose billions on android and have lost billions on youtube.

FTTH deployments are not as easy as google makes them look. My ISP is actually under going one right now. Eventually, I will have it. But it won't be gigabit speeds and it won't be near as cheap as google either. I should also state my ISP is a nonprofit and is in a huge amount of debt from the ftth deployments, that they may or may not be able to pay in the future. These deployments are expensive and supplying gigabit speeds is not as cheap as google makes it look.

reply to Simba7
I didn't say never. There is a time to upgrade and there is a time to wait. At&t actually has ftth u-verse in new construction. But the difference to the consumer is unnoticeable.

Was not long ago everyone was saying deploy new wireless networks. Sprint did just that. And now they are decommissioning it after wasting billions. They jumped the gun too quickly and have wasted tons of money that someone has to pay for. When the time is right for a company to deploy ftth, they will. For some small companies, that time is now. For larger companies that can deploy VDSL or other fast technologies and have the overwhelming majority of their subscribers be happy, that time might be a few years from now. At that time fiber will be even cheaper and more logical.

reply to silbaco
Yep, lets just half ass every form of infrastructure for the next 100 years.

face it, either we figure out how to make this happen or be happy living in the 2000's. It's 2012, why the hell are we not willing to update things that really do need updating?

reply to silbaco
It's needed tomorrow, not today.

reply to silbaco
3 Things

First, our economy NEEDS the internet or it would collapse? Prove it! Besides who are you to say it doesnt "need" gigabit to not collapse?

Second, I see I am speaking with someone that has no clue of networks. You do realize that the cost to upgrade would be a complete waste if you dont deploy it to the 10-15 year future right? Copper certainly would not be that, thus fiber is the only way to go and providing 10mbps or 1gbps is an incremental cost barely measured in the scheme of things. Why do you think Google is doing 1gbps over say 100mb symetrical? 100 would still put them in the upper echelon of all ISPs.

Third, it appears you are arguing just to argue because 1 you have no clue about networks and 2 you constantly want to impose your opinions on what is NEEDED (by your definition) and what is not on everyone else.

Considering networks is what I do (no I do not work for an ISP) it seems you are probably arguing with someone who knows MORE about networks than you.

Proof it? Seriously? The fact that you want me to prove that our economy needs internet access because every single business relies on it in one form or another means you truly have no idea what you are talking about.

Deploying something 15 years early in something as fast paced and ever changing as networking is stupid. It costs several times more and after 15 years, needs to be overhauled again. More than once. And in At&t's case, while maintaining their old copper lines because the FCC says they have to. If At&t deployed fiber to the home 15 years ago, that would have been stupid for business.

Why are businesses still deploying 5E and cat 6 cable instead of fiber? Clearly fiber networks are superior right? Hmm. I know a large place that did deploy fiber to computers. They even had fiber NICs. Guess what happened? 3 years later they deployed cat 5E and 6 throughout the entire building and regretted putting in fiber. It was costly, far more expensive to maintain, and now all the equipment would actually be slower than the copper cat 6 network. What a shame.

I am arguing this because it is funny to watch you make things up.

Lets see businesses deploying copper still. Lets look at those facts shall we?

1.) Copper is still capable of 1gbps (even 10gbps) at such short Ethernet lengths, are easily terminated and dont really require any special skills like fiber. 2.) Switches above 10gbps are not so common place yet and thus are still very expensive and not worth the added cost for a vast majority of businesses out there. 3.) Fiber for such short runs would be expensive because a major cost in fiber is the splicing and short runs totaling into the hundreds or even thousands for even an office of 500 people is not worth it when you consider #1 and #2 above. 4.) ISP's do not provide WAN links that would be usable at an affordable price for said speeds (reason we are here discussing this). 5.) Few servers are capable of utilizing even bounded multi-gigabit cards, especially servers that a vast majority of the businesses you are lumping together would use. Should I go on?

And I am calling BS on you knowing a company that deployed fiber to the desktop and went back to copper. Not that there arent some out there that did that and then during a remodel went the cheaper route (see #1-5 above). I just think you personally are full of crap and if it is a true statement, then it was probably to 3-5 workstations and a server. Your argument that it is more costly to maintain and is slower than copper shows your lack of knowledge, yet again. If you are truly going to tell me that running copper for a a quarter mile, mile or many miles is more reliable and faster than fiber you truly need to exit from this conversation. Or is it that you have been defeated on the ISP side so now you are attempting to bring this to a local level?

Fiber in the business doesn't really require many skills either. Fiber is not difficult. It is a bit pricey if you don't have the proper equipment.

1. But don't business want to be future proof by 15 years? Is that not what you are incompetently arguing for? I never said it was realistic. You did. Gigabit WANs are not very hard to come by just so you know. They just take money.

2. Call BS. Actually it was 3 floors and several hundred workstations and probably around a dozen servers. And actually, it was far more expensive to maintain. The cost of the hardware that failed at a pretty high rate was the main reason for installing copper. Again, you don't know what you are talking about.

When did I ever say running copper long distances was more reliable than fiber? Man you just keep making things up.