Affordable broadband and consumer protections for all—that’s the plan at least.
Read the whole story
Read the whole story
San Francisco seeks universal fiber broadband with net neutrality and privacy
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Given Sonic's expansion in the east bay, it seems finally that Comast may face some competition. This is something I'm extremely happy about.
Upvote
57
(57
/
0)
If this succeeds this might very well be the first thing San Fran has done in decades that actually benefits all of its citizenry in some way.
Upvote
38
(44
/
-6)
Though I'm not overly optimistic, I wish the City the best in this endeavor. I do wish the budget had more money for basic road/sidewalk repair.
In the meantime, Sonic has wired up most of the northwest part of the city, so I'll enjoy gigabit fiber while City Hall botches this like they did the last city WiFi plan...
In the meantime, Sonic has wired up most of the northwest part of the city, so I'll enjoy gigabit fiber while City Hall botches this like they did the last city WiFi plan...
Upvote
22
(23
/
-1)
I like the Ammon, ID model: Citizens pay for the infrastructure, and therefore "own" the infrastructure and can make votes to decide it's path as a whole. An entity runs the infrastructure as a utility and keeps the packets flowing. All have equal access to the infrastructure including service providers and consumers. Search for "Ammon's Model: The Virtual End of Cable Monopolies" if you want to know more.
Upvote
46
(47
/
-1)
They've gone further than that. They've been wiring up the Mission, Noe Valley, and I believe Potrero Hill also. East/West streets in the Sunset and Richmond are coming soon (they only wired North/South in those areas). I believe they have plans for the whole city in the works.
Berkeley, Albany, El Cerrito, and Kensington are being strung now and parts of Oakland are in the works I think. AT&T has been wiring fiber all over the East Bay the past year, but their symmetrical service is a bit more expensive. They haven't touched SF yet though.
I have AT&Ts gig service but will switch to Sonic in a heartbeat if they hit my street. The AT&T CPE firmware is crap, their peering is spotty, and their IPv6 implementation isn't great (they just flipped the switch on Native IPv6 finally); not to mention their business practices, lack of privacy protections, and just overall crappiness. Other than that, their FTTH service has been rock solid for me though. My old Comcast line was great, but I've had zero downtime with AT&T.
Upvote
22
(22
/
0)
No, not as far as I can tell. There is a rule for community service districts that limits them to only offering broadband communications if no private entity will do so (and if they do build a broadband network they need to turn it over to a private entity if that entity is willing to take over the services), but other public entities are not limited that way - so cities and counties are free to do so. I know that my city is looking into it, though I believe we are still locked into a cable franchise agreement (and in a complete coincidence AT&T announced that they were going to offer fiber broadband in one neighborhood where a lot of the support for municipal broadband was coming from shortly after the city council decided to go ahead with paying a consulting company to put together a feasibility study).
Upvote
14
(14
/
0)
They might have to allocate two or three Designated Defecation Zones (shitting streets) to pay for it, but what the heck.
Upvote
2
(6
/
-4)
This is sure gonna make it easier to afford those $2,100/mo rents in the area.
(Shade aside, props to any metropolitan area that gets its crap together to push this sorta city-wide initiative!)
(Shade aside, props to any metropolitan area that gets its crap together to push this sorta city-wide initiative!)
Upvote
37
(37
/
0)
"The city estimates construction would take three to five years."
Wait, are they expecting a whole new network or an expansion of something like Sonic?
If it's overall brand new network then a-ha-ha-ha-ha, good luck with that (unfortunately). Even with micro-trenching it'll take a very long time to re-wire everything
Wait, are they expecting a whole new network or an expansion of something like Sonic?
If it's overall brand new network then a-ha-ha-ha-ha, good luck with that (unfortunately). Even with micro-trenching it'll take a very long time to re-wire everything
Upvote
8
(9
/
-1)
With Google on the broadband bandwagon, this project in their back yard could make sense and perhaps bank some goodwill with the locals at the same time. And they could partner with the Boring Company to drill holes all over the place.
Upvote
4
(5
/
-1)
Once you no longer pay the fees Comcast secretly adds to your bill, $2,100/month per rent is super affordable compared to the rest of the Bay Area! (Side note, where can you find a 1-bedroom in SF for $2100/month? that actually *is* a really good deal...)
Upvote
30
(30
/
0)
That's all well and good, but I just wish the FCC would enforce its own rules on what constitutes broadband. Frontier Communications seems to think 768 kbps is broadband. And they refuse to tap into the feds broadband grant program to improve their pathetic service.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
Ask Earthlink how providing an alternative, low-cost, high-speed broadband service to San Francisco goes....
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
Google used to be on the fiber bandwagon. They hopped off a year or so ago.
Upvote
12
(12
/
0)
That's nice and all but I feel like if you can afford to live in San Francisco you can afford whatever kind of internet you want.
Upvote
-7
(6
/
-13)
Upvote
-3
(2
/
-5)
You can still order Google Fiber in SF/Oakland/Berkeley through Webpass, but they only will install in multi-unit buildings and Google barely makes any effort to promote or sell their product. I just get the sense Google's heart isn't in the fiber business any more.
Upvote
-1
(3
/
-4)
This is very much like how things work in New Zealand. We have fiber to the home in a large majority of places with high populations, which is owned by the government (mostly). Any ISP here can use the fiber cables, which means we have quite a few providers to choose from, and I'm most cases gigabit speeds.
It's been a great roll out over the past few years, and is continuing at a decent pace. One of the best parts is, for now at least, the fiber installs are free in the vast majority of cases.
It's been a great roll out over the past few years, and is continuing at a decent pace. One of the best parts is, for now at least, the fiber installs are free in the vast majority of cases.
Upvote
22
(22
/
0)
That's pretty much how Google does business. They come up with something, throw themselves into it for a good year or so, keep it rolling for a few more, and then just stop. Wave, Buzz, Reader, etc. Frankly it's astonishing they never killed Gmail.
Upvote
19
(20
/
-1)
$2100 is a deal. When I was in Santa Clara, I was paying almost $3000/month for a one bedroom apartment with a total living area not much larger than my bathroom back in Australia.
But having a choice of ISP (rather than being stuck with Comcast) would have still been nice. I didn't have that option at any price.
Upvote
14
(14
/
0)
At this point is it even worth it? You already got gigabit through Comcast, and more cost effective Gigabit through AT&T and other fiber providers; and 5G networks are starting to build out.
I feel like by the time they actually complete the project, they'd wouldn't really need it. This should be something cities that don't already have fiber networks should do, not cities that already have it.
I feel like by the time they actually complete the project, they'd wouldn't really need it. This should be something cities that don't already have fiber networks should do, not cities that already have it.
Upvote
-17
(2
/
-19)
If it's open-access, you'll be able to choose from more than two options.
Australia is building out an open-access wholesale network (despite the best attempts of politicians to interfere with engineering decisions and derail it). I'm lucky enough to be connected, and have a choice of something in the order of 50 providers. If I want a dirt-cheap provider with unlimited downloads but congested international transit, I could go with that option. If I want a geek-centric ISP with great support and ridiculously over-provisioned transit, I can pay for that. If I want a provider that bundles IPTV, I can choose that. If I want one that just offers internet, then that's an option too.
Having just two choices isn't really competition. It's a duopoly. Open-access networks, with low barriers to entry, actually allow the free market to work as it should.
Upvote
25
(25
/
0)
With how much possible money California stands to make with the legalization of cannabis, they could use a small % each year to build out a network across the state. But who knows how much of that revenue would be left after covering all the other programs written in to their law and how long it would take.
California is just too bipolar, one minute their announcing something great, next minute they're planning some stupid shit, like talk of coffee coming with a fucking cancer warning! gtfo!
California is just too bipolar, one minute their announcing something great, next minute they're planning some stupid shit, like talk of coffee coming with a fucking cancer warning! gtfo!
Upvote
5
(6
/
-1)
I can't see Google doing this. They once offered San Francisco free WiFi for the whole city. They soon realized what a minefield San Francisco politics really is. "What if I live two stories underground? I can't get your Wifi signal. That isn't fair." The biggest argument, believe it or not, was "What about the homeless? How are they supposed to get the Wifi signal if they don't have access to a computer?"
Mind you, Google was offering all of this for free. And all of a sudden they were the enemy of the people. I doubt they'll enter the cesspool of San Francisco politics again willingly.
Upvote
18
(19
/
-1)
No - at least not exactly.
The salient part of the law is "if a city builds its own network and then a private company (an ISP, in this case) shows up "ready, willing, and able to acquire, construct, improve, maintain, and operate broadband," the city has to turn it over or lease it to that company. "
TBH, if a cable company does all that then they'll be doing a shit-ton more than anyone else has done in many places, and the lease could bring in revenue, too. It's not as bad as it sounds, with all the provisions an ISP has to comply with just to get a chance to pay for it.
Considering when the law was enacted (well before NN), I expect that if it comes to a fight, the law will be re-examined. But as written, it's not exactly telling anyone "no" and it's a high bar for an ISP to clear to interfere.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
Statistical
Ars Legatus Legionis
Gigabit for what price and what terms and what upload speed?
This is what you end up with if the city builds the last miles and lets ISPs compete to provide services on it.
11 different ISPs to choose from with prices as low as:
250 Mbps symmetric (no caps) - $32/mo
1Gbps symmetric (no caps) - $48/mo
10Gbps symmetric (no caps) - $199/mo
https://www.utopianet.org/pricelist/
Also those prices have been falling 15% to 25% a year. Plus those are real prices no "new customer" gimmick rates which go up $20 after the first year, no equipment charges, no hidden fees. Just $48 and you get gigabit with no caps.
Upvote
14
(15
/
-1)
https://twit.tv/shows/triangulation/episodes/263
Dane Jasper interview for Sonic fanbois.
Dane Jasper interview for Sonic fanbois.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Perhaps it would be more easily doable if the city could build something like a “city backbone” that would bring connections to every block (or few blocks), leaving it to others to wire small streets and connect individual homes and businesses. Those “others” could be commercial or community operators granted a fixed-term concession to the lines that they build…"The city estimates construction would take three to five years."
Wait, are they expecting a whole new network or an expansion of something like Sonic?
If it's overall brand new network then a-ha-ha-ha-ha, good luck with that (unfortunately). Even with micro-trenching it'll take a very long time to re-wire everything
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Sonic was great (Fremont), re-selling AT&T's 50 mbps (fusion x2?). But, when AT&T offered Gigabit for around the same price, AND Sonic upped their price $10 to "pay for fiber expansion in San Francisco" (something that would still never bring fiber to Fremont), I jumped back to AT&T. $70/month for gigabit, no caps. We'll see how long that lasts.. But it's been great so far. Now if only I could say that same about their VOIP product..
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
A lot of us who got in at the $70 rate with AT&T have that rate for life (along with no equipment fees or caps). It was an awesome contract they offered at the end of 2016, but they ditched it in early 2017 and raised the price to $80 with no rate or cap guarantees for the future.
Sonic is offering their FTTH service at $40/mo plus taxes for the phone line and a rental fee for the gateway. Sonic will actually let you ditch the gateway though and use your own equipment since they don't use the crappy 802.11x authentication AT&T uses which requires a gateway. If you have issues without paying for Sonic's gateway though, they will charge you for a service tech to come out. Either way, Sonic's FTTH service is still cheaper.
Comcast is a joke right now. Their Gigabit offering only only does 35M up and comes with higher latencies. All for $119 or so last I looked.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
Google harvests far more saleable personal data via gmail than it costs to run gmail...
With google, it is all about the $$.
--
Upvote
0
(2
/
-2)
I like how the one fuckwit that works for Comcast found your post and downvoted actual facts. It would be funny if it was not so first world tragic.
Upvote
3
(6
/
-3)
I may be misreading what they are doing, but it doesn't sound like the intent is to offer broadband service themselves, but to build the fat, dumb pipes we should have, and offer their use to ISPs who would then compete with each other for the residents' business.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
In my previous post, I showed how that works under CA law. What you posted is one way of observing that law with the intent to have an ISP come in. Under a lease deal, the city can choose an ISP to use their system, and the ISP still has to comply with the legal obligation to maintain, improve, and operate it.
That means it could be a NEW (AKA competition) ISP that comes in, and the city can bring broadband where it's under-served. ISP's can "pay that off" over the time of the lease without the capital expenditures WITHOUT generating revenue while they build it themselves. FISCALLY, it makes a lot of sense - as long as it's actually creating competition.
Being able to offer a lease means a city can shop around and advertise among other ISP's. And it doesn't HAVE to sign a deal with the ISP with the most dollars, because all it has to do (ideally) is break even.
There's a lot more nuance to the law than one might get at first glance - especially if one thinks ALL ISP's are shit. Many of the very local ones are actually quite good. The problem is that they're too local to provide regional services. Something like this could bring in LOCAL ISP's - not just the big two who don't compete anywhere with each other (or whatever monopolies are out there now).
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Perhaps it would be more easily doable if the city could build something like a “city backbone” that would bring connections to every block (or few blocks), leaving it to others to wire small streets and connect individual homes and businesses. Those “others” could be commercial or community operators granted a fixed-term concession to the lines that they build…"The city estimates construction would take three to five years."
Wait, are they expecting a whole new network or an expansion of something like Sonic?
If it's overall brand new network then a-ha-ha-ha-ha, good luck with that (unfortunately). Even with micro-trenching it'll take a very long time to re-wire everything
Nope, no easier.
My example -- Palo Alto.
The city has had its own fiber ring backbone for two decades, but has still yet to figure out how to leverage it to benefit residents, and smaller businesses.
And this is a city that, on paper at least, would seem to be a prime candidate to exploit such an advantage:
-Heart of Silicon Valley
-Educated and wealthy populace
-Well run municipality with good funding
-Experience running its own utilities
I have direct personal experience with the last two, albeit with a another part of the Utilities dept. But the people I encountered who worked for the city were smart, forward-thinking, had high standards, and well-funded. Overall, it was a tight, well-run ship that compared favorably to most municipalities.
That was around twenty years ago, with the fiber ring almost complete.
I haven't kept a pulse on the city, but here we are in 2018, and they still haven't been able to put that fiber to better use, and based on what I can find, are still debating it.
At one time, someone had the foresight to build it, and it may have been a little ahead of the times. But given all that has transpired since, it's puzzling how they haven't been able to fully exploit that advantage.
I think San Francisco, like most cities, will have a different problem -- promising plan, but it will have difficulty executing it.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Except that Google has conspicuously not put SF on their list of potential Google Fiber cities. Oh, that, and they appear to be getting off the broadbsnd bandwagon, not on.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
$2100 a month in SF gets you half of a garage way out in the Sunset. Maybe.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
- Status