backtop


Print 74 comment(s) - last by Integral9.. on Sep 22 at 9:17 AM


EPB is delivering the nation's fastest consumer internet connection by the end of the year -- a 1 Gbps service.

Only a few cities worldwide -- like Hong Kong -- have 1 gbps connections.  (Source: TropicalIsland.de)

Small-scale socialized internet offerings have been trampling the rates and service of commercial competitors like Comcast. These competitors have responded by trying to outlaw municipal Wi-Fi.  (Source: Comcast)
Socialized municipal offering handily beats out local commercial competitors

Despite the criticism of mild socialism -- including government-owned utilities -- thus far commercial cable offerings in the U.S. have fallen grossly short of successful municipal offerings.  Services like the municipal effort of Wilson, N.C. have offered faster, cheaper internet than commercial offerings.  Cable companies have responded by pouring millions into lobbying local, state, and federal governments to enact proposals to ban municipal internet services.  To date, they have seemed unable to stamp out this pesky brand of community socialism.

Now Chattanooga, Tennessee is preparing to launch a new municipal service which will offer speeds up to an incredible 1 Gbps.  The service, to be deployed by the end of the year, will be the fastest household internet connection available in America today.

Ron Littlefield, the city’s mayor, cheers, "This makes Chattanooga — a midsized city in the South — one of the leading cities in the world in its digital capabilities."

The service will be managed by city-owned utility EPB.  It will join just a handful of consumer 1 Gbps offerings worldwide, including the fastest connections in the city of Hong Kong.  The service is almost 200 times faster than the average U.S. broadband speed according to analysts.

There are some downsides of the super-fast service.  One is the ability to fully utilize the ultra-wide line.  While transmission speeds are somewhat dependent on what speed the downstream party can receive data at, they are also dependent on how fast upstream parties can serve the data at.  So while you may be able to get a 25 GB Blu-Ray movie in about three and a half minutes, in theory, few data providers will be able to serve the movie that fast.

Another obstacle is the price – a whopping $350 a month.  While the city is also offering more affordable bundles that should beat the rates of competitive commercial offerings, its top-tier option is undeniably pricey.  At that rate it may appeal more to businesses than the majority of individual buyers.

Comments Harold DePriest, chief executive of EPB, "We don’t know how to price a gig.  We’re experimenting. We’ll learn."

The new service will reach 170,000 homes and businesses in the area and help add a bit more bang to citizens' buck, in a region that 
Forbes magazine already rates as one of "America's Best Bang-For-The-Buck Cities.

If President Obama has his way, a national socialized internet offering will also soon arrive.  The President's FCC appointees are pushing plans to cover 100 million homes with 100 Mbps by 2020.  That connection would be one-tenth the speed of Chattanooga's. 

Despite the sluggish performance of cable giants like Comcast and Time Warner, some commercial players are also looking to deploy high-speed offerings.  Google announced plans to cover up to 500,000 people with 1 Gbps internet.  The service received 1,100 applications from communities and Google will announce its pick(s) by the end of the year.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Just great!
By superPC on 9/14/2010 11:03:41 AM , Rating: 2
first the government makes it difficult and expensive for corporation to provide fast and cheap internet to everyone with regulation, tax, license and permit. now the government themself opt to providing internet service that doesn't get burdened by regulation, tax or license.

how is this fair?




RE: Just great!
By Stan11003 on 9/14/2010 11:34:08 AM , Rating: 2
pesky government regulations, next time we will just have Comcast roll that trunk line right through your house.


RE: Just great!
By AEvangel on 9/14/2010 12:06:36 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
pesky government regulations, next time we will just have Comcast roll that trunk line right through your house.


I would not mind that one bit since Comcast would have to under LAW compensate me for my property at fair market values or are you saying they would just do it with out asking, well then I can sue them under the LAW for damages, either way I would be more then justly compensated for my property. So really go ahead and run that trunk line.

The only way I could get screwed in your scenario is if GOVT stepped in with imminent domain laws and seized my property from me, once again it's Govt that is the problem not the Corporation, the Corporation exist solely to make money for it's shareholders and if we the people are stupid enough to surrender our rights through our Govt to them then so be it, don't blame them for taking advantage of our stupidity.

Expecting the world to treat you fairly because you are a good person is like expecting the bull not to charge you because you are a vegetarian. - Rabbi Harold Kushner


RE: Just great!
By ValorMorghulis on 9/14/2010 12:13:33 PM , Rating: 5
Okay I hate to be this guy... but seriously when will people get it straight? Its not Imminent domain its Eminent domain. I don't mind misspellings but that's not the right word.


RE: Just great!
By Fritzr on 9/14/2010 12:20:46 PM , Rating: 1
In addition to the corrected wording. Eminent domain is not legalized theft. It is a forced sale.

Just as he says he would not get screwed by Comcast destroying his home because they would pay for it. An eminent domain siezure also pays the "Fair Market Value" of the property.

I don't know why he thinks it's ok for a private corporation to pay, but getting the shaft if the gov't pays instead. With eminent domain he doesn't even have the hassle of taking the offender to court unless he wants to haggle over the price :P


RE: Just great!
By AEvangel on 9/14/2010 12:53:44 PM , Rating: 5
Sorry, for the spelling error auto correct did that before I noticed it, my bad.

quote:
I don't know why he thinks it's ok for a private corporation to pay, but getting the shaft if the gov't pays instead. With eminent domain he doesn't even have the hassle of taking the offender to court unless he wants to haggle over the price :P


The difference is one I can CHOOSE to sell it to the Corporation and with Eminent domain it is legalized theft because I'm forced to sell it at the price the Govt determines is fair market value.

Eminent domain and it's use is an abortion of the very reason we founded this country.


RE: Just great!
By theapparition on 9/14/2010 1:38:51 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Eminent domain and it's use is an abortion of the very reason we founded this country.

This country was founded based on freedom from sometimes oppressive lords and the promise of land ownership.

Land ownership is now a distant dream. Not one person owns land in this country. Stop paying taxes on it (dues to the Lords), and you'll see how quickly you "own" anything.


RE: Just great!
By JonB on 9/15/2010 2:57:25 PM , Rating: 2
Eminent Domain is a tool. Like any tool, it can be abused.

Good uses: purchasing right of ways for highways at a reasonable market price instead of having to route the highway around "grandma's little plot of land" because she won't sell at any price or paying an exorbitant price charged by an overzealous land-grabber who may have had insider information about the highway route.

Bad uses: condemning the land where grandma still lives, evicting her and paying below market value for a "municipal project" only to have the city turn around and resell the property one year later to a commercial developer for 20 times what the city paid.


RE: Just great!
By AntDX316 on 9/15/2010 5:53:29 PM , Rating: 2
======================

Gotta hate how people living in country areas get better internet service, it used to be where the only thing they could get was Satellite Broadband!


RE: Just great!
By AEvangel on 9/15/2010 6:40:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Good uses: purchasing right of ways for highways at a reasonable market price instead of having to route the highway around "grandma's little plot of land" because she won't sell at any price or paying an exorbitant price charged by an overzealous land-grabber who may have had insider information about the highway route.


Wrong, there is no good use..so let me get this straight according to you Grandma has less rights then other people simply because others decided they wanted a Highway? Also how is any different from the land grabber you mentioned. He has the same rights as everyone else if they can't make the deal happen then they change the highway.

Eminent Domain is bad tool and it should be abolished.


RE: Just great!
By Integral9 on 9/22/2010 9:17:05 AM , Rating: 2
1) the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. So if granda's house or Joe the plumber's house has to make way for the highway, then so be it.

2) Fair Market Value is not determined by the government. An licensed appraiser working for a private company does that. Generally that is determined by the recent sale of comparable properties in the area.

3) The promise of land and property was easy to make when the country was founded because it was 3000 miles to the other coast line and there was very little claim to the land between. So you could just go out and put a stake in the ground and claim land as yours. Now all the land is owned by someone so the government needs tools like Eminent Domain to be able to further development. Without it, building bridges, highways, expanding roads, installing utilities and even building schools and libraries in existing neighborhoods wouldn't be possible.


RE: Just great!
By dxf2891 on 9/16/2010 9:27:34 AM , Rating: 2
Try saying that with a straight face to a Native American.


RE: Just great!
By dxf2891 on 9/16/2010 9:31:51 AM , Rating: 2
This entire country was founded on the basis of eminent domain. Europeans saw a need for this land to found a new nation, so they took it. But at least they were generous enough to bring their own free labor from Africa.


RE: Just great!
By AEvangel on 9/14/2010 12:57:01 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Just as he says he would not get screwed by Comcast destroying his home because they would pay for it. An eminent domain seizure also pays the "Fair Market Value" of the property.


Also because I can sue for well more then the actual fair market value. I could sue for the damage done to the home and make them repair it to it's original condition removing their trunk line and compensate me for pain and suffering as well.


RE: Just great!
By callmeroy on 9/14/2010 1:03:37 PM , Rating: 2
Well, in this case, you mean you could fake it to claim pain and suffering....

By itself you being forced out of your house doesn't meet the legal qualification of pain and suffering...

In fact "pain and suffering" is one of the most misunderstood legal terms among the majority of citizens.. Everyone thinks its that easy -- "just claim pain and suffering"...nope doesn't work that way.


RE: Just great!
By Mojo the Monkey on 9/14/2010 5:18:44 PM , Rating: 2
You make me sick. All I hear from your "camp" is complaints about regulation and also complaints about attorneys ruining this country. I know not you, specifically, but I always hear it together. Sounds like you'd need attorneys to protect your interests here...

Also, regulation is absolutely necessary. I dont want my family eating poison aspirin so that I can watch them die and then go sue Bayer and get their $$ worth. I want drug companies to have regulation of their production and testing standards.

You anti-regulation people never take into consideration the start-up company that makes a product that is EXTREMELY harmful to the users... and then goes bankrupt after the first couple of lawsuits. What about the thousands of others who, now, have no one to sue? Where is the invisible hand of the market to correct that atrocity? I'd rather it didnt happen in the first place. Regulation is a necessary evil.


RE: Just great!
By AEvangel on 9/14/2010 7:32:26 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
You make me sick. All I hear from your "camp" is complaints about regulation and also complaints about attorneys ruining this country.


Well, there is difference between having the law protect you and having abusive attorney's with frivolous law suits, I agree we need some tort reform to some extent.

quote:
Also, regulation is absolutely necessary. I don't want my family eating poison aspirin so that I can watch them die and then go sue Bayer and get their $$ worth. I want drug companies to have regulation of their production and testing standards.


LoL..this one always makes me laugh, so I wonder how all that regulation in the drug industry is working. Prescription Drugs are ranked among the third leading cause of deaths in America and lawsuits due to side effects rank among the highest pay outs in the legal system. The FDA is one of biggest failures next to Social Security and Medicare out there. Vioxx, Bextra,Zelnorm,Tysabri, NeutroSpec, Cylert, Permax, Baycol, & Palladone, just to name a few. Yeah, you keep trusting in bureaucrats that have no interest in your real protection and get their funding from the very same companies they are to police. All of this of course this is just covering the Drug aspect of their protection, I haven't even mentioned how ineffective they are in monitoring Food safety, due to corporate giants like ADM and Monsanto who have more money then God and buy off any petty little bureaucrat who might cause a problem on the food issues.

According to the FDA, if you think a prescription drug you took for headaches caused your heart attack, you cannot sue the manufacturer if the drug met agency standards. Similarly, the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission says you can't sue a mattress maker if your mattress meets CPSC standards -- even if it bursts into flame. The principle could be extended to apply to any product meeting federal safety standards, such as cars and trucks.

Plaintiffs' attorneys are calling this increasingly common claim "silent tort reform." It could place new limits on the rights of those who buy or use products -- and save billions of dollars for companies insulated from lawsuits.

Consumer groups point out that these assertions mean the federal agency rules override state product liability laws. But when has the Federal Govt known any limits to it's power.

quote:
You anti-regulation people never take into consideration the start-up company that makes a product that is EXTREMELY harmful to the users... and then goes bankrupt after the first couple of lawsuits. What about the thousands of others who, now, have no one to sue? Where is the invisible hand of the market to correct that atrocity? I'd rather it didnt happen in the first place. Regulation is a necessary evil.


I do...it's called responsibility...try having some...if a company starts up and tries to sell you something do some research yourself first and figure out if they are worth trusting. I mean most people do more research on what car or phone they buy then the stuff they put in their bodies.


RE: Just great!
By tastyratz on 9/18/2010 1:43:59 AM , Rating: 2
Your comments on the failures of the system in place now are duly noted. While the system in place is corrupt, full of holes, and in dire need of reform - it's still a system in place. It certainly beats the wild west of nothing at all.

Does it need change? of course. As long as the government is overseen by men and men are corrupt you will see it in every form of government here to eternity.

Your comment on responsibility only carries so much weight. An educated consumer can make a purchased based on research at their disposal but is in no way a subject matter on each individual product purchased. We rely on these regulations and safeguards to help weed out the market and leave us with more appropriate choices than not. It might not eliminate all problems but it certainly does eliminate many.

As far as this being government run?

We have 2 options:
1 privatize and tax the crap out of it to make money or
2. remain government operated and keep the proceeds.

Given the current state of broadband I think a government run operation will give the private companies a run for their money. The market is not a free market. If exclusive rights were outlawed and competition could exist we would see far better broadband adoption and pricing. This at least is another option second to that, and competition.

If government run 100 meg wifi across the us existed at a reasonable price then private companies would have to either offer faster cheaper internet or roll over and give up - I think they will pick option 1. In the end, the consumer wins here much more than they do now.


RE: Just great!
By AEvangel on 9/21/2010 8:41:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your comment on responsibility only carries so much weight. An educated consumer can make a purchased based on research at their disposal but is in no way a subject matter on each individual product purchased. We rely on these regulations and safeguards to help weed out the market and leave us with more appropriate choices than not. It might not eliminate all problems but it certainly does eliminate many.


I disagree, you can effectively have other private entities provide the needed regulatory function that Govt provides with less corruption then our current system, which is mainly geared to protect the corporation. In fact if you were to allow private industry to create regulatory bodies that would be funded by consumers who CHOOSE to subscribe to this service. Then the company would then publish their reviews on products something like Good Housekeeping or Consumer Reports does now. If they were corrupt and published misleading or fraudulent information then no one would buy their services, they would go out of business and some other more trust worthy company would step up. This is similar to most of your review sites out on the internet today, while some are funded by companies they are quickly discovered as corporate shills and not given any credence.

I still stand by my statement that this is about personal responsibility and if you give away your right to personal ownership of your actions and decisions expecting some other group to protect you then you are nothing more then a slave to them and their whims.

The core of the issue here is that everyone has been educated, mainly by Govt and the media to believe that all businesses are out solely for profit with no concern for the consumer. This concept is inherently flawed since any company with this mentality would soon find it self with out a consumer to survive off of since their product would have either killed them all or been proven so deadly no one would buy it.

While this has nothing to do with the original article it is interesting to talk about.

In regards to Local City run internet, as long as the Federal Govt and State Govt protect these corporations from competition then what other choice do we have.


RE: Just great!
By marvdmartian on 9/14/2010 2:28:02 PM , Rating: 4
What about if it's Imminent Eminent Domain?? ;)

Oh, and I'm sure that the MPAA and RIAA will be standing by with their lawyers, to start suing all the illegal file sharers in Chatanooga, with their ludicrous speed internet!!


RE: Just great!
By dxf2891 on 9/16/2010 9:24:18 AM , Rating: 2
Did you pay CURRENT fair value for your house? Nah, I didn't think so. So, you're okay with receiving $30,000.00 for a house which you're paying $180,000.00? I think this government push will do nothing but increase competition.


RE: Just great!
By Azure Sky on 9/14/10, Rating: 0
RE: Just great!
By AEvangel on 9/14/2010 11:53:06 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
first the government makes it difficult and expensive for corporation to provide fast and cheap internet to everyone with regulation, tax, license and permit. now the government them self opt to providing internet service that doesn't get burdened by regulation, tax or license.


Actually it's the Corporation in conjunction with the Govt that makes it hard, do you think Comcast and TW, really want to roll out 1 GB service to you right now?? No, if they roll it out slowly a couple of megs at a time, then they can keep their price inflated by acting as if they are improving the network. That is the reason the price stays the same or goes up each year. The regulations also make it impossible for anyone but the large providers to provide the service since any start up will be strangled by the cost. Your Govt regulations protect the Corporations from competition.

That is why we have no true Free market system left in this country and where we do it works wonderfully for the consumer. Point in case cosmetic surgery or Lasik Surgery one of the few area's in medicine not regulated that heavily by the Govt and prices have dropped dramatically year after year as more competition enters the market.

Don't forget your Govt does not work for you but for the largest campaign donors who are the Corporations. This is not Socialism it's Fascism or Corporatism.


RE: Just great!
By dalingrin on 9/14/2010 1:21:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That is why we have no true Free market system left in this country and where we do it works wonderfully for the consumer. Point in case cosmetic surgery or Lasik Surgery one of the few area's in medicine not regulated that heavily by the Govt and prices have dropped dramatically year after year as more competition enters the market.


I think you've got this wrong. The reason for the price drop is because insurance often doesn't cover cosmetic and lasik surgery. Insurance is the primary factor in artificially inflating medical costs. While government regulation is secondary at best. I would say medical malpractice does more to inflate medical costs than government regulation.

Many medical practices will lower their price if you don't have insurance and you ask. They can lower the price not because they get some government subsidy(though some can) but because the rate they charge insurances is inflated.
Additionally, depending on the region, your choice of medical practices is limited to those that are "in-network" if you want to take full advantage of your insurance. This certainly inhibits free market.


RE: Just great!
By AEvangel on 9/14/2010 7:46:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Insurance is the primary factor in artificially inflating medical costs. While government regulation is secondary at best.


You would be right on the surface, but can you name two of the largest insurance providers out there??

Medicare & Medicaid.

If the Federal Govt would have never interfered in the Health care market in the first place starting back in the 70's then we would not have the insurance problems we have today. It used to be that you only had health insurance for large ticket health aliments like cancer or accidents, and this insurance which is still available today is very inexpensive, but never for everyday trips to the Doctors or simple prescriptions, but with Govt regulation and interference in the market place the system is corrupted and this is what we have now.


RE: Just great!
By dalingrin on 9/15/2010 7:08:41 PM , Rating: 2
I again, disagree. The increase in Medicaid/Medicare cost per beneficiary has always trailed the private insurance cost per beneficiary.
If private insurance premiums had increased in cost similar to Medicare, then premiums would be 1/3 - 1/4 lower than they are now.
That to me shows that private insurance is driving costs, not Medicare.


RE: Just great!
By AEvangel on 9/16/2010 5:32:27 PM , Rating: 2
I find that hard to believe since I have seen several studies that show cost per beneficiary is always higher in Medicaid/Medicare.

Also most studies never factor in the lost revenue due to the collection of the premium from the tax payer in the first place, nor do they take into account fraud and waste with in the Medicaid/Medicare system.


RE: Just great!
By theapparition on 9/14/2010 1:35:14 PM , Rating: 4
That's the part everyone misses. Projects like this are NOT socialism. Not at least in my definition.

Socialism takes everyones taxes and gives services to everyone for free (or at an otherwise unmarketable subsidized price). You have no choice to opt out of those services, other than not use them (but still pay).

The municipal program here should be profitable from the revenue it collects from paying customers. Tax dollars shouldn't be used to subsized any part of it. People who have no need for the service should not pay for it. Just because it would be "government" owned doesn't immediately identify it as socialist.
Now my two concerns. One is that they compete fair in the market. Because of thier position they shouldn't get any advantages. But considering that companies like Comcast have used every legal means to disallow competition in the marketplace, opening up the market can only mean good things for consumers.
Second is I'm concerned about future censorship. It's not much of a stretch to believe that public/political outcry could force certain web address to be banned. Imagine a mayor running under the slogan "Protect our children" who's on a crusade to ban legal pornography sites, or music downloads, or information about religous organizations, etc.


RE: Just great!
By Ammohunt on 9/14/2010 2:32:50 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget the heavy tax payer funded subsidies involved with this. I will sooner use dial up than any Government owned and controlled internet connection.


RE: Just great!
By icrf on 9/14/2010 4:44:31 PM , Rating: 2
What tax funded subsidy are you referring to? Would that be the bonds EPB sold to fund the build-out, the same thing a great many private companies have done in the past?


RE: Just great!
By DrApop on 9/14/2010 3:16:31 PM , Rating: 3
Hong Kong, Europe, Asia and many other regions/countries regulate, tax, license and require permits. But what you will find it that in many of those places I mentioned above, the internet speed is not only faster, it is cheaper. So that sort of blows your theory right there.

This is just another failing of US companies to remain competitive...within the US and with the rest of the world.

Wait until some foreign telecom comes over here and decides to offer what no one else here has offered - faster internet and better telecom. US companies will be crying foul all over the place....just like Detroit did 35 years ago when Asia provided smaller, better built, and more fuel efficient autos during the Arab oil embargo of the early 70's. And 35 years later most american auto companies are still behind the curve.


RE: Just great!
By superPC on 9/14/2010 9:09:26 PM , Rating: 2
the big difference is in all of those countries it's fairly cheap and easy (no lawyer needed) to obtained all the license and permits and the tax is also cheap not to mention the regulation is very lax. it's not only that US companies not competitive but US itself is not competitive (we're talking about internet here there's a whole other things where US is competitive like microprocessor design, johnson & johnson, soda etc.)

and you bringing up point about foreign telecom come in to US, that would never happened. the US regulation, license and permits, prohibits that.


RE: Just great!
By konacustom on 9/14/2010 9:21:49 PM , Rating: 2
I think you're getting federal government and local government mixed. They are very different. This is yet another case of local people who are tired of getting their toes stepped on and their wallets robbed, taking things into their own hands and voting something through. You will see more of this in many other facets in coming years as federal government starts failing more often and in more ways. The cracks in the wall are showing and everyone knows it! Wait! I didn't say that! The 'thought police' might show up and haul me off next!


Stupid waste of money
By Homerboy on 9/14/10, Rating: 0
RE: Stupid waste of money
By Chapbass on 9/14/2010 11:24:10 AM , Rating: 2
How about multiple users to multiple sites? I wouldn't mind this one bit at home. Wouldn't mind the charge either, especially to get away from capped internet :\


RE: Stupid waste of money
By icrf on 9/14/2010 11:34:13 AM , Rating: 5
I live in Chattanooga, and how the network was funded is probably different from what you're envisioning. EPB is first and foremost an electric power company. To better monitor usage (including skipping meter readers) and better locate outages, they needed to install a communication network. They already had ROW to everywhere in the county, so laying fiber had minimal regulation problems (the same as any local incumbent, like Comcast and AT&T). The only government grant was a federal grant for the actual smart meters.

Once they get to the point of running fiber to every electricity customer, it wasn't a huge leap to offer end users other services over that fiber. The entire fiber build-out and all internet/phone/video was funded with bonds (again, the same as any company could do).

The only thing that makes this internet build-out sound socialized is the fact that as a city-owned company, they don't have short-term profits to worry about. If they think they can make more money off the network than they'll have to pay by the time the bonds mature, then it's a simple business decision. The fact that the city owns EPB may make the bonds issued by EPB safer, too.

In the end, if electricity monitoring and internet share the same fiber, surely they share some of the costs. I don't know how the "one subsidizes the other" argument is resolved.


RE: Stupid waste of money
By inighthawki on 9/14/2010 11:35:35 AM , Rating: 2
Perhaps you're forgetting that an internet connection is not limited to a single computer and a single hard drive in said computer. Just because you yourself cant use 1gbps on your own doesn't mean that 5 computers in the house cant. What if several people wanted to stream an hd movie all at the same time?


RE: Stupid waste of money
By Stan11003 on 9/14/2010 11:37:06 AM , Rating: 1
Maybe your wimpy HDD can't hold up to 1Gbps but my SSD can. Although it would be full in few minutes, note to self: invest in large array of SSD drives with savings from buying a home in Chattanooga.


RE: Stupid waste of money
By Lord 666 on 9/14/2010 1:34:17 PM , Rating: 2
Just drove through TN actually and was pleasantly surprised with how advanced it is down there. Almost like an up and coming RTP.


RE: Stupid waste of money
By Silver2k7 on 9/21/2010 11:44:09 PM , Rating: 2
"Maybe your wimpy HDD can't hold up to 1Gbps but my SSD can. Although it would be full in few minutes"

lol so a small thing thats full in a few min isn't wimpy too :)

Wish the that the 1TB SSD's would become affoardable like max 2x a 1TB HDD..

Btw 1Gbps have been avalible in Stockholm for a few years IIRC.


RE: Stupid waste of money
By XtremeM3 on 9/14/2010 1:18:37 PM , Rating: 5
Not all B's are created equal. Bandwidth is measured in bits(little b). 8 bits make a byte(big B). So 1Gbps is roughly 125MBps, which is not hard for a decent HDD to keep up with, let alone an SSD and/or multiple machines.

While the question of which service would allow you to reach that actual rate, give optimal latency to even come close to line rate, is a valid one(multiple TCP connections FTW) - the goal is to keep yourself from becoming the bottleneck. If you want to d/l music/movies from iTunes, while streaming some HD from Netflix, while someone else is watching Hulu Plus, upload some pictures/video to your facebook, while d/ling some games/updates/maps on XBL, and playing a game on PSN - you can and without any of those services taking a hit due to your resident connection being the bottleneck. Is that a little much? Sure. Its it every household that will do it? No - so they get a cheaper plan. But it's nice to have the option.

The more bandwidth available the more services will appear that use network connectivity. And the better those services will be. Embrace new and better things, don't knock it because it doesn't apply to you. I would love a 1Gbps resident connection, but I can't justify the current cost for what I do at home. But their other plans have very appealing price points as well. Especially with the symmetrical up/down speeds.


RE: Stupid waste of money
By bjacobson on 9/16/2010 8:54:52 AM , Rating: 2
but we do that already on our 2mBps pipe from Comcast combined with simple QoS router management on our end. We don't need a city-provide $350/month pipe to do that.


RE: Stupid waste of money
By XtremeM3 on 9/17/2010 2:06:56 PM , Rating: 2
Unless that isn't a typo and you have a 2mBps line(16Mbps) - Not multiple HD streams you aren't:

http://blog.netflix.com/2008/11/encoding-for-strea...

QoS works great when properly configured, but it ain't magic :) It can only ensure you have x amount of the original bandwidth. You're still having to carve up those allocations between 2Mbps.

I tried downgrading to a 3Mbps offering recently to save some $, but it drove me insane. By myself, I could stream Netflix in HD, but you add something else into the mix and bam, my quality got downgraded due to my available bandwidth changing. Especially if it was another device in our house trying to stream from Netflix.


RE: Stupid waste of money
By eggman on 9/14/2010 3:51:50 PM , Rating: 2
EPB is a non profit organization setup by the city in 1935 to supply electricity. It also supplies phone, TV and other internet services. This 1 Gig is primarily intended to be a carrot to lure high tech businesses to the city.

As a side note, Chattanooga is a great town. We visit often. It is a great music town, free outside concerts, a very large yearly 9 day music festival. It has a few brewpubs, nice restaurants and uses its riverfront and downtown make it very prosperous.


Pricey? Not at all.
By MrTeal on 9/14/2010 10:57:24 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Another obstacle is the price – a whopping $350 a month.


If that 1Gbps line does not include bandwidth caps, it's not pricey, it's a bargain. Even if you used 1% of its capacity, you'd be pulling in 2.6TB of data a month. Granted there are few people who would use such capacity, but it's there if you needed. The other big thing not mentioned in the DT article is that its 1Gbps symmetrical, which you don't see in many home connections. If you want to run a small-medium sized website, you have a cheap way to do it from home. Good for Chattanooga, I still don't forgive you guys for that awful Alan Jackson song though.

BTW - This is another DT article with a half dozen links to other DT articles, a bunch of annoying mouse-over ad-words, and no link to the original article or press release. I had to go to the EPB website to find it. How about citing sources?




RE: Pricey? Not at all.
By Homerboy on 9/14/2010 11:01:46 AM , Rating: 2
If you only used 1% of its capacity what is wrong with a DSL or cable connection then? (assuming no bandwidth caps etc on those).


RE: Pricey? Not at all.
By MrTeal on 9/14/2010 11:13:13 AM , Rating: 3
Because to get the same amount of data would require you to saturate your connection 24/7. During the evenings you might be wanting to be streaming HD movies/TV to a couple different computers in your house, while uploading a bunch of photos to flicker with your web server running in the background. During the day or late at night you might use very little of the connection.

I'm definitely not saying it's for everyone, it's only valuable for those people who can use it. But for those people it's not expensive, it's a bargain compared to some other options out there.


RE: Pricey? Not at all.
By fic2 on 9/14/2010 2:14:57 PM , Rating: 2
The residents in the building I live in would love this. There are 47 units so we would get ~20Mbps each and pay ~$8/month. This would also be cheap for the satellite office I work in. We move large (1G) amounts of data all the time up/down to our main office so this would save a lot of time.


RE: Pricey? Not at all.
By MrTeal on 9/14/2010 2:40:43 PM , Rating: 2
It appears I must apologize to Chattanooga, as I've been informed the commented on song refers to a Chattahoochee. My first thought was that a Chattahoochee must be a nasty girl living in Chattanooga, but apparently it's a river.


RE: Pricey? Not at all.
By jithvk on 9/14/2010 8:19:02 PM , Rating: 2
I am using 1Gbps connection for almost a year here in Japan. Its completely unlimited and cost me around 6000yen (~$60) per month.
Once you get a connection above 100Mbps (which i had before switching to 1Gbps), your last mile loop is not the bottleneck any more. You can never saturate the link above 20-25% of the actual capacity. Even to utilize the 20% or so, you must have account in some dedicated servers which are located very near to ur place.

This is the result i will get if i do a speed test. Not that great as promised, but still good.
http://speedtest.net/result/924442695.png


RE: Pricey? Not at all.
By CowKing on 9/14/2010 10:40:51 PM , Rating: 1
I think I'm most impressed with the 50Mbps upload than the download speed to be honest


RE: Pricey? Not at all.
By UNHchabo on 9/15/2010 1:53:34 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
BTW - This is another DT article with a half dozen links to other DT articles, a bunch of annoying mouse-over ad-words, and no link to the original article or press release. I had to go to the EPB website to find it. How about citing sources?


What are these "annoying mouse-over ad-words" of which you speak?

Oh, right. I forgot that not everyone uses AdBlock. :)


Not the whole story
By amanojaku on 9/14/2010 1:22:19 PM , Rating: 2
I submitted this article last night after reading it on Yahoo News, and am surprised that link was not included. There is more to the story that might quiet the people claiming this service is socialism and unfair to capitalism. It's actually an intelligent offering that could be duplicated by private companies. If they weren't so damn greedy.

EPB is a utility, which means it has a presence in every part of it's government's jurisdiction (Chattanooga). It happens to be a government-owned utility (booo!!! hissssss!!! I know, I know...) but that is not true of all utilities. My electricity provider, ConEd, is private and could offer this service, too. How?

EPB is much more advanced than most utilities. It has a grid that has been upgraded several times since 2000, and a fiber network throughout the city to monitor the grid. And that is the same network it is providing the gigabit service over. In fact, EPB provides phone and cable over the grid-monitoring network, as well. Since the fiber network already existed, or went up when new electrical lines were deployed, the cost for becoming an Internet provider was lowered significantly.

Compare that to ConEd, which still sends someone to my building to read the meter, because there is no fiber for monitoring. It was seen as an achievement when the meters were moved from the apartment to the basement, so you didn't have to stay home from work when ConEd came around. This was seven years ago. In Manhattan.

EPB buys its electricity from Tennessee Valley Authority because it doesn't generate its own. As a result of intelligent outsourcing, the reduced focus on obtaining power has been directed toward optimizing it's services and lowering operating costs. EPB has obtained numerous grants for building infrastructure ahead of schedule, which is something that is rarely seen in a public or private company. Or a government one. Apparently, EPB is unique in that it has great services, great pricing, and a great track record. Public, private, or government owned, this place is a model of efficiency compared to its peers.

http://www.epb.net/about/our-company-and-history/




RE: Not the whole story
By DanD85 on 9/14/2010 2:01:59 PM , Rating: 2
It seems smart socialism beats stupid, greedy, anti-competitive capitalism hand down.


RE: Not the whole story
By amanojaku on 9/14/2010 2:27:42 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, this isn't socialism. EPB earns money buy selling services to consumers for a profit. However, the government ownership of EPB requires that it be a non-profit: no shareholders or owners exist to receive stocks or dividends, so the retained earnings is 100% and the profit is recycled into improving the company.


RE: Not the whole story
By bernardl on 9/14/2010 6:54:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Actually, this isn't socialism. EPB earns money buy selling services to consumers for a profit. However, the government ownership of EPB requires that it be a non-profit: no shareholders or owners exist to receive stocks or dividends, so the retained earnings is 100% and the profit is recycled into improving the company.


That's disgusting! You mean that an entity is able to deliver value to its customers, yet nobody gets to buy a Ferrari???

Have you considered for a second the possibility that this model could be replicated to a large scale?

Cheers,
Bernard


RE: Not the whole story
By Fritzr on 9/14/2010 8:00:21 PM , Rating: 2
They can still get their Ferrari. The standard way to milk a non-profit is by awarding top management with goldplated benefit packages, high salaries & graduated bonuses awarded for "job performance" :P

All you have to do to get rich by being charitable is to work for the charity and put yourself in a position to control compensation :D


Subsidies
By nstott on 9/14/2010 11:40:14 AM , Rating: 3
What is the cost after you include the forced tax-payer subsidies, whether the service is used or not, to offer at that artificially low price, comrade? Furthermore, doesn't this make it easier for the government to spy on our Internet activity and to throttle sites not approved by the state?




RE: Subsidies
By Fritzr on 9/14/2010 12:28:22 PM , Rating: 2
Read the coment above from a Chatanooga resident. EPB is the local electric utility and the internet offering is using the fiber they installed to enable remote meter reading. This is a profitable sideline for a regulated utility company .. Much like the Cable TV companies piggy backing telephone & ISP on their existing cable networks.


RE: Subsidies
By nstott on 9/14/2010 1:33:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Read the coment above from a Chatanooga resident.

I already did. Read what Mick wrote about Obama's plans, which is what I was refering to.


RE: Subsidies
By Fritzr on 9/14/2010 7:53:05 PM , Rating: 2
That paragraph on the tail end of the article? Would have been a good idea to point out that you were not commenting on the article, but instead on a side issue that was mentioned to put the extreme speed in perspective.

The "socialist broadband" is one of the smartest things the Feds could do. The private sector has had decades to build a national infrastructure. Instead of doing so they have connected those areas that generate the most profit and issue promises of connection for the rest...someday.

The internet has grown far beyond a luxury convenience. Full access to internet is now a national security issue. If private or as in the case of Chattanooga quasi-private companies cannot build the infrastructure then it is time to do what was done with commercial fire departments. Declare the service to be a public good and provide the service as a public utility. As it is a service like water & electric that customers can opt out of, it will be paid by the connected customer according to the service level signed up for. This is the model Chattanooga used & their utility has it's fiber optic meter reading system paid for by a separate revenue stream :)

If the Federal government follows this model and tells electric utilities across the country to upgrade to fiber optic meter reading systems that are internet ready, then the national broadband rollout will be paid by the customer, not the taxpayer. Unlikely that this will happen though ... the Congress Critters won't be able to hand out "free" money under that plan except for grants to the utilities to cover the cost of the upgrades. Personally I prefer bonds repaid from revenues, but the Congress Critters need to pay their voters.


Gentlemen...
By Iaiken on 9/14/2010 10:53:05 AM , Rating: 2
We can rebuild it. We have the technology. We have the capability to build the world's first 1gbps network.

Chattanooga will be that network; better than it was before.

Better, stronger, faster.

<queue the music>




RE: Gentlemen...
By Fritzr on 9/14/2010 12:29:40 PM , Rating: 3
Oki its queued ... waiting for the cue now :P


SOCIALISM!!!
By haze4peace on 9/14/2010 11:29:13 PM , Rating: 1
ZOMG ITS SOCIALISM!!!!!!

seriously... fuck you dailytech




RE: SOCIALISM!!!
By Emma on 9/15/2010 9:03:24 AM , Rating: 2
Australia is investing $25 billion on a 1Gbps national network that will reach 93% of homes, the remainder will get wireless and satellite. I think it's a worthwhile investment, the country will lose another competitive advantage without it, and business isn't going to do it.


RE: SOCIALISM!!!
By YashBudini on 9/21/2010 12:28:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
ZOMG ITS SOCIALISM!!!!!!


Just be sure to stick to private roads when driving Mr Well-thought-out.


A Wopping $350 ?
By hr824 on 9/14/2010 12:06:37 PM , Rating: 2
Ahh comcast's 50 meg connection is $100 a month if they used comcast's pricing it should be 2k a month.

We need much more of this if for nothing else but to show just how over charged we are.




RE: A Wopping $350 ?
By Drag0nFire on 9/14/2010 2:53:53 PM , Rating: 2
Also remember, Comcast offers "up to 50meg" for $100. If there are other Comcast subscribers in your neighborhood, chances are you won't get the full speed...


Irony
By Modeverything on 9/14/2010 12:15:44 PM , Rating: 2
It seems ironic to me that the government wants to distribute high speed internet with faster downloads than a server will upload to you, but at the same time they want to ban P2P like bittorrents which could really make great use of these high speeds.




RE: Irony
By Fritzr on 9/14/2010 12:31:19 PM , Rating: 2
5 servers able to give 250Mbs would swamp this connection ... no need to use P2P to max it out :)


Magnifecent
By andrinoaa on 9/16/2010 7:25:10 PM , Rating: 1
I am always amazed at the stupidity of you yanks. How has it come that you are so blind to other ways of doing things. Letting the market do things the market's way is so obviously restrictive. There has to be a balance, but you guys are so off the scales. The contortions to make it fit have us all laughing. Its like a pedantic Jew who can't work on a Sabath, yet finds loop holes to get around it.
Face facts, large infrustructure can only be put in place by governments. There is no one organization that can do the complete job OR wants to do the complete job. I applaud Cincinnatti for this initiative. At least some people in your country seem to have some understanding of the way the market can fail. Its so obvious, just look at the "rubics cube" you have now, hahahahah.




RE: Magnifecent
By andrinoaa on 9/16/2010 7:42:00 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, insert Chatnooga for cincinatti.
By the way its not socialism. You guys pride yourselves on the notion that anyone with enough motivation can be president or "succeed". Or are you of the persuasion that there is no such thing as a society? How many homeless people are there in America? How many people live under the poverty line in America? So obviously, what you have been doing ain't very effective, cause if it was so good , it wood be perfect! So isn't it time to look past "its socialism" and understand that we all need bits of socialism, communism and capitalism to make things work better? Communists tried to put everything under one banner and failed. So too has over emphasis on free markets tried to put everything under the same banner. I am just amazed at your thinking "inside the bubble".


I hope
By RugMuch on 9/14/2010 10:32:00 AM , Rating: 2
I hope pornorip.net servers are on that network.




Brought a tear to my eye
By piroroadkill on 9/15/2010 6:02:21 AM , Rating: 2
Literally - 1Gbps symmetrical has to be the pinnacle of personal net connections. Just beautiful.




"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki