Discussion:
Santa Cruz Fiber
(too old to reply)
sms
2015-04-07 16:12:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
<http://www.tellusventure.com/blog/community-owned-fiber-networks-take-a-big-step-forward-in-santa-cruz-county/?utm_campaign=twitter&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitter>

Hopefully Jeff's office is in one of those areas!
Jeff Liebermann
2015-04-07 17:19:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
<http://www.tellusventure.com/blog/community-owned-fiber-networks-take-a-big-step-forward-in-santa-cruz-county/>
Hopefully Jeff's office is in one of those areas!
Unlikely. My palatial office is nowhere near the targetted areas.
It's a county project and I'm in the city. Here's the map of the
proposed service areas:
<http://www.tellusventure.com/downloads/ccbc/santa_cruz_broadband_assessment_map_30jan2015.pdf>
and the grand plan:
<http://www.tellusventure.com/downloads/ccbc/santa_cruz_county_broadband_assessment_30jan2015.pdf>
I haven't read it completely, but the report has some interesting
examples of other cities that have municipal fiber (under Case
Studies). The PDF's appear to be scans and I can't find the originals
online.

As usual, funding is unknown. Initially, the "core network" is
suppose to be 43 miles long and cost up to $10 million. That's
$230,000/mile, which makes me wonder why it's priced it at 15 times
the going rate. My guess is because it's priced as FTTP (fiber to the
pole), while the $10 million is for FTTH (fiber to the home). See
Attachment 2 for cost estimates.
--
Jeff Liebermann ***@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Brad Allen
2015-04-13 18:06:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeff Liebermann
<http://www.tellusventure.com/downloads/ccbc/santa_cruz_broadband_assessment_map_30jan2015.pdf>
<http://www.tellusventure.com/downloads/ccbc/santa_cruz_county_broadband_assessment_30jan2015.pdf>
I haven't read it completely, but the report has some interesting
examples of other cities that have municipal fiber (under Case
Studies). The PDF's appear to be scans and I can't find the
originals online.
As usual, funding is unknown. Initially, the "core network" is
suppose to be 43 miles long and cost up to $10 million. That's
$230,000/mile, which makes me wonder why it's priced it at 15 times
the going rate. My guess is because it's priced as FTTP (fiber to
the pole), while the $10 million is for FTTH (fiber to the home).
See Attachment 2 for cost estimates.
FTTP during Verizon FIOS rollout was Fiber to the Premises, which
meant commercial or residential (FTTH). U-Verse was something else.
There's FTTH (to the home), FTTC (to the curb), FTTP (to the premises)
and FTTN (to the node, ala UVerse). FTTP was what we all called FIOS.

Has AT&T tried to fool us by changing the nomenclature?

So you're saying they quoted FTTP (Verizon FIOS) prices for FTTN (AT&T
Uverse) service? Sounds like AT&T is trying to get somebody else to
pay for their rollout, then they buy it at a bake sale for pennies.

I read a lot of that PDF. It is full of propaganda attempting to get
a project.

If you asked me decades ago, more competition is (and was) a good
thing, and we could definitely use FTTP (fiber to the premises). If
this is the only way we're going to get it, I may begrudgingly have
accepted. But these days Internet is more about censorship and
tailored brainwashing through selective portals, so the question has
more to do with who owns the connection and not whether the connection
is big and fast enough.
sms
2015-04-13 18:23:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brad Allen
FTTP during Verizon FIOS rollout was Fiber to the Premises, which
meant commercial or residential (FTTH). U-Verse was something else.
There's FTTH (to the home), FTTC (to the curb), FTTP (to the premises)
and FTTN (to the node, ala UVerse). FTTP was what we all called FIOS.
Aren't FTTH and FTTP the same thing? FTTP covers homes and other
buildings, but it's the same thing.

FTTN and FTTC are similar in that the connection to the building remains
a copper pair, but FTTC implies a much shorter copper run, whereas with
FTTN the node can be pretty far from the home.

In Cupertino, it's FTTP. Great for businesses to be able to have 1Gb/s
service but pretty pointless for homes at this time. But AT&T is
offering slower speeds at prices comparable to Comcast. But the deep
packet inspection is an issue.
Roy
2015-04-13 21:30:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brad Allen
Post by Jeff Liebermann
<http://www.tellusventure.com/downloads/ccbc/santa_cruz_broadband_assessment_map_30jan2015.pdf>
<http://www.tellusventure.com/downloads/ccbc/santa_cruz_county_broadband_assessment_30jan2015.pdf>
I haven't read it completely, but the report has some interesting
examples of other cities that have municipal fiber (under Case
Studies). The PDF's appear to be scans and I can't find the
originals online.
As usual, funding is unknown. Initially, the "core network" is
suppose to be 43 miles long and cost up to $10 million. That's
$230,000/mile, which makes me wonder why it's priced it at 15 times
the going rate. My guess is because it's priced as FTTP (fiber to
the pole), while the $10 million is for FTTH (fiber to the home).
See Attachment 2 for cost estimates.
FTTP during Verizon FIOS rollout was Fiber to the Premises, which
meant commercial or residential (FTTH). U-Verse was something else.
There's FTTH (to the home), FTTC (to the curb), FTTP (to the premises)
and FTTN (to the node, ala UVerse). FTTP was what we all called FIOS.
Has AT&T tried to fool us by changing the nomenclature?
So you're saying they quoted FTTP (Verizon FIOS) prices for FTTN (AT&T
Uverse) service? Sounds like AT&T is trying to get somebody else to
pay for their rollout, then they buy it at a bake sale for pennies.
I read a lot of that PDF. It is full of propaganda attempting to get
a project.
If you asked me decades ago, more competition is (and was) a good
thing, and we could definitely use FTTP (fiber to the premises). If
this is the only way we're going to get it, I may begrudgingly have
accepted. But these days Internet is more about censorship and
tailored brainwashing through selective portals, so the question has
more to do with who owns the connection and not whether the connection
is big and fast enough.
AT&T does sell the FTTH (ot FTTP if your prefer). It has been out for
years. I think my first install of AT&T fiber was in 2002 or so. I
connected two industrial sites together for a measly $7K/month at
gigabit speeds over 3 mile!

Example:

http://www.business.att.com/enterprise/Family/network-services/ethernet
Jeff Liebermann
2015-04-14 04:53:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brad Allen
Post by Jeff Liebermann
<http://www.tellusventure.com/downloads/ccbc/santa_cruz_broadband_assessment_map_30jan2015.pdf>
<http://www.tellusventure.com/downloads/ccbc/santa_cruz_county_broadband_assessment_30jan2015.pdf>
I haven't read it completely, but the report has some interesting
examples of other cities that have municipal fiber (under Case
Studies). The PDF's appear to be scans and I can't find the
originals online.
As usual, funding is unknown. Initially, the "core network" is
suppose to be 43 miles long and cost up to $10 million. That's
$230,000/mile, which makes me wonder why it's priced it at 15 times
the going rate. My guess is because it's priced as FTTP (fiber to
the pole), while the $10 million is for FTTH (fiber to the home).
See Attachment 2 for cost estimates.
FTTP during Verizon FIOS rollout was Fiber to the Premises, which
meant commercial or residential (FTTH). U-Verse was something else.
There's FTTH (to the home), FTTC (to the curb), FTTP (to the premises)
and FTTN (to the node, ala UVerse). FTTP was what we all called FIOS.
This might help:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber_to_the_x>
FTTP (fiber to the premises) means that they supply an interface box
with fiber from the provider, and whatever you think is useful on the
client side.
Post by Brad Allen
Has AT&T tried to fool us by changing the nomenclature?
Of course. AT&T totally redefined their own definition of U-Verse,
which was original an integrated voice, video, and internet service.
Locally, it's now internet only via IP-DSL.
Post by Brad Allen
So you're saying they quoted FTTP (Verizon FIOS) prices for FTTN (AT&T
Uverse) service? Sounds like AT&T is trying to get somebody else to
pay for their rollout, then they buy it at a bake sale for pennies.
Nope. I still haven't read the document completely, so I can't offer
a better explanation. As I understand it, it's very much like Google
Fiber except on a smaller scale.
Post by Brad Allen
I read a lot of that PDF. It is full of propaganda attempting to get
a project.
It's a sales pitch to get fiber connectivity paid for by various
government programs. It's rather difficult to get funding without the
song and dance. Also, since the plan was put together by a
professional broadband planner, I would expect considerable "padding".
Post by Brad Allen
If you asked me decades ago, more competition is (and was) a good
thing, and we could definitely use FTTP (fiber to the premises). If
this is the only way we're going to get it, I may begrudgingly have
accepted. But these days Internet is more about censorship and
tailored brainwashing through selective portals, so the question has
more to do with who owns the connection and not whether the connection
is big and fast enough.
I think you may have misread the purpose of the project. It's an
attempt to get funding for a high speed fiber distribution system that
could be used by the local ISP's. The first few paragraphs of the 119
page monster proposal fairly well define the goals and purpose. AT&T
is part of the puzzle only because the project will probably use their
right of way and poles. The county's participation is on the basis
that a fiber distribution system will be good for the local economy
and therefore worthy of local government funding.
--
Jeff Liebermann ***@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Tim May
2015-04-08 04:38:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by sms
<http://www.tellusventure.com/blog/community-owned-fiber-networks-take-a-big-step-forward-in-santa-cruz-county/?utm_campaign=twitter&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitter>
Hopefully Jeff's office is in one of those areas!
Why should anyone but Jeff care that _his_ office is in one of the
politically-favored dropzones?

This government boondoggle will favor the established ISPs by routing
lines closest to the largest contributors. Not a problem if the
contributors were in fact paying for it. But they are only
contributors, and their $10,000 contributions to the Usual Suspects
will earn them 50-200x returns in terms of then being able to dole out
the bandwidth to places that certainly don't have fiber (them being the
Last Mile, and all).

I pay enormous amounts of property as well as income taxes, yet my area
of Corralitos has only DSL at my house. The approved monopoly cable
provider deigns not to run cable to my house (as it wasn't already in
place when the earliest cable lines were laid, circa the late 70s). The
DSL is crappy.

And yet my tax money is supposed to fund high-speed lines to the
several principal ISPs plus the queers and freaks at UCSC, Cabrillo,
and NixxedSpace.

Fuck that.
--
Tim May
m***@gmail.com
2015-04-15 17:57:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by sms
<http://www.tellusventure.com/blog/community-owned-fiber-networks-take-a-big-step-forward-in-santa-cruz-county/?utm_campaign=twitter&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitter>
Hopefully Jeff's office is in one of those areas!
Yeah hopefully
m***@gmail.com
2015-04-15 18:01:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by sms
<http://www.tellusventure.com/blog/community-owned-fiber-networks-take-a-big-step-forward-in-santa-cruz-county/?utm_campaign=twitter&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitter>
Hopefully Jeff's office is in one of those areas!
Yeah hopefully
Post by sms
<http://www.tellusventure.com/blog/community-owned-fiber-networks-take-a-big-step-forward-in-santa-cruz-county/?utm_campaign=twitter&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitter>
Hopefully Jeff's office is in one of those areas!
Yeah hopefully
m***@gmail.com
2015-04-15 23:05:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by sms
<http://www.tellusventure.com/blog/community-owned-fiber-networks-take-a-big-step-forward-in-santa-cruz-county/?utm_campaign=twitter&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitter>
Hopefully Jeff's office is in one of those areas!
Yeah hopefully
Post by sms
<http://www.tellusventure.com/blog/community-owned-fiber-networks-take-a-big-step-forward-in-santa-cruz-county/?utm_campaign=twitter&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitter>
Hopefully Jeff's office is in one of those areas!
Yeah hopefully
Post by sms
<http://www.tellusventure.com/blog/community-owned-fiber-networks-take-a-big-step-forward-in-santa-cruz-county/?utm_campaign=twitter&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitter>
Hopefully Jeff's office is in one of those areas!
Yeah hopefully
Post by sms
<http://www.tellusventure.com/blog/community-owned-fiber-networks-take-a-big-step-forward-in-santa-cruz-county/?utm_campaign=twitter&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitter>
Hopefully Jeff's office is in one of those areas!
Yeah hopefully
Loading...