And the winner of Austin, TX’s gigabit service arms race is... Grande?

Company based in nearby San Marcos, TX beats two Internet heavyweights to the punch.

Read the whole story

 

[AdamM]

grimlog[/url]":2gm2ucdw]

FrisbeeFreek[/url]":2gm2ucdw]Are all these companies each going to run separate fiber to each terminal? If so, what a waste. In a sane world, we'd run a single fiber, then let providers compete to lease the connection.

In a sane world, government regulation wouldn't reflexively be shit on as the Big Evil. That's what it'll take to get fiber to be just a dumb pipe, and that's why it's not going to happen in the US.

It also wouldn't be reflexively praised as the solution to everything.

If a municipality wants to build its own fiber network and let everyone use it. I support that, but I don't see why a company should have to provide infrastructure to it's competitors.

Especially when they have to foot the cost for the initial build out.

 

[AdamM]

Wes Felter[/url]":1kznh82b]

FrisbeeFreek[/url]":1kznh82b]Are all these companies each going to run separate fiber to each terminal? If so, what a waste. In a sane world, we'd run a single fiber, then let providers compete to lease the connection.

Maybe people who already have Grande won't sign up for Google rallies and thus Google will never wire those neighborhoods.

AdamM[/url]":1kznh82b]Good luck getting anyone to run anything if they're forced to share it with their competitors afterwards.

That bait and switch usually only works after the fact.

I think people would prefer the government to run the fiber with the intention of sharing it so that there's no bait and switch.

I would certainly agree there.

 

[AdamM]

MobiusPizza[/url]":2sua2u2w]

AdamM[/url]":2sua2u2w]

FrisbeeFreek[/url]":2sua2u2w]Are all these companies each going to run separate fiber to each terminal? If so, what a waste. In a sane world, we'd run a single fiber, then let providers compete to lease the connection.

Good luck getting anyone to run anything if they're forced to share it with their competitors afterwards.

That bait and switch usually only works after the fact.

It works, look at the UK.

The UK currently lags behind the US on speed.

http://meincmagazine.com/information-tech ... an-10mbps/

While unbundling has brought down prices. It hasn't really improved speeds much above what they are in the US.

Canada is another example of this. Despite line sharing they lag behind the US speed wise. You bring down prices, but you create an incentive to leech off incumbents.

In order to clear up any confusion i'll lay down my positions.

I do not support line sharing on principle that I hate eminent domain like schemes with a passion and I see incentive to leech.

I do not support municipalities who build up networks without open access that are able to use tax dollars to subsidize prices.

I do not support communities who make efforts to prop up monopolies with preferential treatment or exclusive right of way contracts.

I do support municipalities who build networks that are open access to anyone who wants to connect. Assuming these networks are ultimately paid for by usage fees and not taxpayers.