Why we should *demand* Fiber-To-The-X (Home, Premises)
As I’ve mentioned before, Bitsum is geographically situated, by sheer coincidence, in a city that offers Fiber-To-The-Home up to 1Gbs symmetric (up/down same speed). Compare to a cable or DSL provider who might provide 10% of the upstream speed (e.g. 300/30). I get 500/500Mbps for $100 a month, and feel good about that. Service is good, fast, and polite.
Further to the speeds, the latency is *amazing* because there are so fewer conversions necessary than a Cable or DSL system.
If [phone and cable co’s] want to profit, then compete, and they will win. Then they won’t be complaining!
This has even enabled me to host non-critical servers at home (not the primary one). Their uptime is 100% so far. And, yes, I do have a static IP address provided by the municipality, and am authorized to do just this! Yes, they *let* their customers run servers. Cable and DSL companies largely don’t, but correct me if I’m wrong.
This has even enabled me to host non-critical servers at home
In my case, we are talking about Morristown Fibernet. Consider, this is a small town of approx 20,000 residents in rural East TN.
When I travel the country, it is very rare for me to find as good Internet.
So, I question us all:
Why should we all not be demanding this level of service everywhere? Not much has gotten better the last decade. It sure would be a good investment for the country. Why isn’t this happening? Well, lobbying, of course!
AT&T and the cable companies are lobbying to make municipal broadband illegal, state-by-state or federal if they can. The whole concept is absurd, it is almost transparently all about their profits. If they want to profit, then compete, and they will win. Then they won’t be complaining! That is the capitalist way.
But then you say: Well, municipalities have an unfair advantage in that they can tap into the tax base. Well, NOT in the case of Morristown Utility Systems and probably many others. It’s books are fully open, so makes for interesting reading.
It is set up as basically a non-profit the city owns. It has to pay for itself. No taxpayer dollars are used at MUS Fibernet. Still, I’m sure there are cases of taxpayer abuse, so we do need to be careful. People and companies like to get their hooks into the tax base, and if they buy the power to do so, it is certainly profitable to them. Thus, let us all be on guard, but that is not MUS! Heck, it wouldn’t even be a concern if they’d just role this out federally. Who says the US government can’t provide Internet service? They provide postal service. Or how about roads — they maintain a road to most our homes. Can’t toss in fiber with that?
No taxpayer dollars are used at MUS Fibernet. It has to pay for itself.
Speaking of competition, there is the 5G ‘solution’. This is the idea that we’ll soon be at the point where we can wirelessly deliver broadband. This is what AT&T has used as the excuse to stop their meager fiber roll-out (dunno about Verizon and others). Indeed, it could happen, though I question whether there is enough spectrum space to handle all that bandwidth. Maybe there is. I just don’t know. Maybe a reader does? If you hear the T-Mobile CEO tell it, we’ll all have wireless 1Gbs symmetric soon, but I just dunno… Is it inevitable? How is latency? How is reliability?
Speaking of competition, there is the 5G ‘solution’…
Honestly, what I am trying to say is that it shows how dysfunctional our government is that we don’t all have better options, or a more competitive market. Many have only one option. Why can’t we do better? Oh, we can? Why aren’t we?