Post by Brad AllenPost 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 AllenHas 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 AllenSo 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 AllenI 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 AllenIf 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