Comments on: The key to innovation: Privately owned fiber?

A paper released by the New America Foundation proposes encouraging consumers to purchase their own fiber lines.

[ecotopian--2008]

This is another example of Socialism for Big Business. Why should consumers pick up the tab for fiber infrastructure which will merely allow some big company to keep on billing them? This kind of cheap-a$$ attitude of US Corporations toward investing in infrastructure is why we are falling behind the world standard. We are headed toward second-string status in education and technology because of this kind of greed and cowardice. Many Asian countries are already on fiber, and they are pulling ahead.

[rdnetto]

Because this prevents the abuse of a monopoly. If a single company owns all the infrastructure, as Telstra does in Australia, then they control what upgrades are performed and what the ISPs can do. Most other ISPs have to buy access to that infrastructure from them at a premium, so they have an advantage, and there is no incentive for them to upgrade. If the infrastructure is owned by the people, then they will be able to upgrade it when they want to.

[Travis Ernst]

This theory scares me even more. It has to run through SOME link to get you on "the grid". You may own the trunk, but to get on the grid, they know WHO it serves. Guess what, it serves the government's idea perfectly. They can tap your trunk and watch your stream all they want. They then know WHO it is going to. It is a wet dream for MPAA and RIAA to bust violators. They know Trunk X goes to Location XXX. Thats Gestapo heaven. It may not be slowing down your service speed through service provider, but it makes your net connection a glass house through FISA.

For ANY violation they can come busting down your doors (with a court notice in the mail). They know you are the only connection on that trunk. You'll have to prove you didn't violate the claim against you.

[Imalittleteapot]

Wow! Now that's paranoid, but it's not really anymore of a problem than we have now. The government can already tap any individual net connection now if they want. What's the difference?

[gerrrg]

I see an easier and faster solution: allow companies like Google, Microsoft and Motorola to create a platform for wireless, high-speed internet access with ad-based support.

That creates a direct competition on pricing of corporate-owned hardlines. Would you choose 10 megabit service that was free, or 50 megabit service that costs $50/month (hypothetical)?

Basically, the only fiber you would put in would be from your house to the curb. (That is the ONLY property your own.) You could do that easily but, by the time the fiber comes from the other way, the type of fiber you install now might not be compatible. It is better if we simply install an open conduit to the curb. Then, when the providers finally build their end, we can make the last link. Then you will have the proper fiber, and terminations in your house. (The path is a big part of the cost, along with the termination splicing.)

[rapier1]

What left me speechless was this line:
"What could the hobbyists, the Steve Wozniaks and Steve Jobses of today, do with 10 gigabytes?"

What I waht to know is where the hobbyists are going to get the money to pay for the enterprise class DWDM equipment requred to drive some dark fiber to 10Gb/s.

[The_Decider]

10 GB switches aren't that expensive. Still, it is too much for your average, and above average homeowner. I spent last summer pricing this gear for a high performance MAN. ~$30,000 will get you a switch with 24 1 GB and 4 10 GB ports that directly support fiber, which has the performance and QOS to provide any latency requirements, this is far more than any household would need. And that is without multiplexing.

However, the fact of the matter is that no matter what someone is doing in their house, they would be hard pressed to use even 1 GB of bandwidth. I know of projects that are working on real time high definition sound and video and use about 1/10 of that.

This is just a scam to reduce costs for corporations. What neighborhoods should do is group up, build a network with a few strands and connect it to a local ISP. They will get a huge bandwidth boost, and over time will cost significantly less. It is not hard to build a high performance network that requires little support time per month.

[brs480]

This is actually a very good idea and is how most telco hotel / colo environements operate. You buy space and pay for a cross connect to the provider of your choosing. Unfortunately, at home, someone else owns that last mile. I feel pretty comfortable that my 4 or 6 fibers of DWDM single mode fiber to a POP / cross conenct wouldn't become obsolete anytime soon. However, I live in an area that has been fully built out. My cost to run fiber to a "POP" for either Cox or Qwest would be in the 10s (more) of thousands of dollars. If the POP were a lot closer, say within 100-200 feet, maybe it would be possible - but my cable company fiber / edge QAM modulator is about 1000 feet away across a busy street. Ironically, the tap for my neighborhood, which is served by P3-1000 cable from it, is actually located 8 feet from where my cable comes into the house. However, I don't see fiber joining it anytime soon.

However, Cox Cable, we can make a deal if you need a place to put down some new edge equipment.. Just hook up these 2 fibers for me.. :-)

[1olive]

Most american companies have stopped adding value and then charging more. They just load on charges until they start losing market share. The "emerging" nations, particularly in the far east, have faster and better broadband, better cellular offerings, more variety than we do. There, companies make money through innovation. It is sad that we have come to be an also ran country where big business uses monopolist practices to extract maximum fees for out of date products and services. That is true for the auto industry and the power industry and the communications industry. When in doubt lobby for tariffs and restrictions seems to be the operating standard for big business in america.

[William Crow]

Invest your money and watch the idea of fiber to the home go obsolete with wireless taking over. Then your either married to fiber because you bought it (how convenient for them) or you walk away from your investment (don't forget opportunity cost on your money) and go wireless at some point.

[dargon19888]

At first I thought that this was a joke.

Lesson learned: Google and Lawyers shouldn't be the one's talking about the future direction of technology.

It seems Google wants a free lunch and doesn't want to take on the expense of laying the next generation of infrastructure.

[wylbur]

typical Google idea: Have somebody else pay for it! The consumer, the telcom, but g-d forbid Google has to pay for something. The ultimate parasitic company is Google profiting off of everybody else's content and network.

[Technojunkie3]

Read the working paper. It's a very good idea. Making the last mile dark fiber cable separate from competing service providers that plug their stuff into that cable makes sense. The dumb dark cable lasts for decades. The service providers just plug their electronics into each end of the cable and get up and running quickly. If your service provider doesn't keep up with technology you can call up another provider who'll swap their electronics onto your cable. The slower, stupider current monopoly providers will hate this but it's their own fault for not building FTTH like Verizon FiOS is doing.