Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Gigabit Speeds At Home In the US

Soulskill posted about 4 years ago | from the for-the-low-low-cost-of-way-too-much dept.

Networking 249

An anonymous reader writes "The Electric Power Board of Chattanooga is preparing to offer 1 Gigabit speeds at home by the end of the year. 'The city-owned utility announced today it will boost its broadband service to 1 Gigabit throughout its service territory by the end of 2010. Such a connection will be 200 times faster than the average broadband speed in America and the fastest of any US city.' The NY Times reports that the service will cost $350 per month. 'Mr. DePriest of EPB does not expect brisk demand for the one-gigabit service anytime soon. So why offer it? "The simple answer is because we can," he said.'"

cancel ×

249 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The price is actually pretty nice (4, Interesting)

ManiaX Killerian (134390) | about 4 years ago | (#33565738)

$3,5 per mbps is pretty close to the wholesale prices - and it would be pretty hard to get that for just 1 gbps. Where's the catch ?:)

Re:The price is actually pretty nice (0, Troll)

ghjm (8918) | about 4 years ago | (#33566070)

I know nothing about it, but my guess is that it's only 1 Gbps to the router room of the Electric Power Board of Chattanooga. From there it presumably rides their T1 to the Internet. (Or whatever they have.) Also, it's probably 1 Gbps download / 128 Kbps upload.

Re:The price is actually pretty nice (4, Informative)

DeusExCalamus (1146781) | about 4 years ago | (#33566448)

I know nothing about it, but my guess is that it's only 1 Gbps to the router room of the Electric Power Board of Chattanooga. From there it presumably rides their T1 to the Internet. (Or whatever they have.) Also, it's probably 1 Gbps download / 128 Kbps upload.

It's symmetrical. https://epbfi.com/you-pick/#/fi-speed-internet-1000 [epbfi.com]

Re:The price is actually pretty nice (1)

Phate1596 (1624699) | about 4 years ago | (#33566452)

According to Arstechnica it a "symmetrical fiber-to-the-home connection" (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/09/chattanooga-tn-beats-google-to-1gbps.ars)

Re:The price is actually pretty nice (5, Funny)

bpsbr_ernie (1121681) | about 4 years ago | (#33566118)

The catch... They'll announce a cap of 5 GB of data. Once you hit the cap, there will be a per MB charge. :)

Upstream (-1)

nOw2 (1531357) | about 4 years ago | (#33565740)

Small print: all fed by a 100mbit/s link to the backbone.
(maybe, I haven't really read it)

Re:Upstream (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33565774)

I'd be more worried that it was limited to 50GB/mo or something.

More info (4, Informative)

auximage77 (1544557) | about 4 years ago | (#33565750)

Additional verbage. http://www.chattanoogagig.com/ [chattanoogagig.com]

Re:More info (5, Informative)

auximage77 (1544557) | about 4 years ago | (#33565800)

and before people tout about the high price, other tiers are available. https://epbfi.com/you-pick/ [epbfi.com]

Re:More info (1)

phantomcircuit (938963) | about 4 years ago | (#33565860)

Those prices are still higher than comcast service is.

Re:More info (4, Insightful)

vijayiyer (728590) | about 4 years ago | (#33565888)

Everyone bitches about Comcast's service, but then isn't willing to pay for quality service. We shouldn't be surprised that we're always in a race to the bottom.

Re:More info (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33566160)

We, as in the USA net services, are never in a race to the bottom. We have no competition, almost all markets are locked into duopolies. You get a cable company offering, a crap DSL offering, and if you're really lucky, FiOS. There's very little impetus to upgrade service levels, when they do they're only trying to get you onto a dearer packaged deal.

A race to the bottom is when you have real competition in a market and all the companies have to actually compete for our business. That means reducing profit margins and upping service, just to stay level. That is something we will never see in the US. This is precisely why the US is tumbling down the internet performance league tables year upon year. Stop the duopoly crap and let others, including local municipalities, get involved. Only then will the consumer see a win.

Re:More info (3, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | about 4 years ago | (#33566406)

a crap DSL offering

What makes DSL "crap"? It's usually cheaper than cable and if the ISP knows their stuff you'll always get what you pay for. When I had Verizon DSL I got 100% of my bandwidth 24/7. By contrast, I've never been able to peg Roadrunner except at 3am. Their "turbo" tier is a joke too -- I can't peg the standard tier during normal hours, why the hell would I pay more money to get more bandwidth I can only use at 3am?

DSL might be slower than cable but it's a perfectly viable option for many (most?) people.

Re:More info (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33566506)

There's no point to letting others get involved because the cost of entry is too high. In this economy, it's probably too high for most municipalities as well.

What we really need to do is bite the bullet and have the government lay fiber to every house in the area. If Comcast (or whoever else) wants to offer service, they pay the government to use the fiber and for space in the POPs. The POPs are all peered with the usual Internet backbones, and Comcast would pay to use those as well. (Probably they'd pay per-subscriber on one end and regular 95th percentile bandwidth on the other.) The government then charges cost plus some extra which it can use for equipment upgrades and that sort of thing. Everyone pays the same rates.

Problem is how to get there from here. The established players would doubtless scream bloody murder. Probably the best approach would be simply to buy the infrastructure from the aforementioned established players at, say, a 50% premium. The cost would be no longer having the ability to set rates, but... it might be enough money to induce CEOs and board members to vote for the plan in the hopes that they'd be able to get out with their money before any of the other shareholders raised a big enough stink. It would mean making the government -- and it would pretty much have to be the Feds, here -- a party to, in essence, the defrauding of millions of shareholders, though. So while it might be the "best" approach in the sense that it's the least unlikely to happen, it's certainly not best in any other sense.

Re:More info (2, Interesting)

sixsixtysix (1110135) | about 4 years ago | (#33566534)

the governnent sh/could just eminent domain the lines

Re:More info (2, Informative)

theaveng (1243528) | about 4 years ago | (#33566538)

You get a cable company offering, a crap DSL offering,

Japan is the world's second fastest country (over 10 Mbit/s average), and everyone is wired with this "crap DSL" of which you speak. Some have upgraded to Fiber, but DSL is the dominant techology.

Re:More info (4, Interesting)

Trepidity (597) | about 4 years ago | (#33565922)

They're symmetric, though, which might not matter for many people, but I find nice. The 30 Mbps lowest tier is 30 Mbps each way, whereas Comcast's 30 Mbps service is 30 down, 7 up.

Re:More info (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33566016)

And Comcast's metrics are bullshit; you'll be lucky to pull in half of that. Fucking PowerBoost gimmick.

Slows down to 1200 baud from 4PM to 11PM. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33566310)

Slows down to 1200 baud from 4PM to 11PM when all the dads get home and start downloading porn.

Re:More info (2, Interesting)

jd (1658) | about 4 years ago | (#33566012)

Uhhh, no. Xfinity 50 Mb/s speeds cost $100. A total pipe of 1 Gb/s will therefore cost $2,000 per month, which equals $24,000 per year. A Cisco router capable of handling 20-way multipath will add $14,000 to this. So for a year's service at equal capacity via Comcast, you'll need to pay $38,000. This is NOT cheaper than what this metropolitan network is charging.

Re:More info (2, Insightful)

Aqualung812 (959532) | about 4 years ago | (#33566046)

Bullshit. Show me a Comcast service that has over 20mb upload, let along 50m, 100m, or 100m. Not everyone cares about download more than upload ability.

Re:More info (2, Informative)

Mr. Freeman (933986) | about 4 years ago | (#33566058)

That's because comcast can give you really great deals when their customer service budget is ~$0 and they provide somewhere around 40% of the service that you pay for.

Re:More info (1)

Shakrai (717556) | about 4 years ago | (#33566444)

they provide somewhere around 40% of the service that you pay for.

Please point out where Comcast promised you anything other than "up to X mbit/s". I've never seen a cable company promise a specific amount of bandwidth, except on commercial connections where you pay for the privilege. Roadrunners advertising all says "Up to 10 mbit/s" or "Up to 15 mbit/s" The "up to" bit isn't even in the 2 point font that legalese typically comes in. It's right there on all of their marketing materials.

Re:More info (1)

Svartalf (2997) | about 4 years ago | (#33566166)

Heh... Perhaps- but can you GET that sort of service from Comcast without establishing a business account (and thereby those prices...)?

Probably not.

The truth of the matter is this: You are getting a fractional T3's worth of bandwidth with the corresponding latencies for 1/6-1/10th the cost. It's comparable to what I'm spending with Verizon for a similar level of service on a business account.

Re:More info (1)

theaveng (1243528) | about 4 years ago | (#33566334)

Chattanooga's $58 for 30 Mbit/s is not bad.
Comcast where I live is not that cheap.
Neither is Verizon

Re:More info (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 4 years ago | (#33566500)

Maybe that is why comcast sucks so bad?

I am switching from Time Warner to FIOS. It costs a little more, but maybe my netflix will do hd most of the time, or not drop the connection in the middle of a show.

Re:More info (4, Insightful)

kindbud (90044) | about 4 years ago | (#33566344)

The "high" price? Only thing "high" is you. What are you smoking, that $350/mo for 1Gbit seems "high?"

Split among 10 people, that's $35 pp for 100 Mbit. How much does your cable, DSL, or fiber provider charge for 100 mbit service? Do they even offer it?

Split among 100 people, it's $3.50 pp for 10 Mbit. How much does your cable, DSL or fiber provider charge for 10 mbit service?

This service is almost unbelievably cheap!

Re:More info (3, Funny)

oldspewey (1303305) | about 4 years ago | (#33565820)

Strange - that link makes absolutely no mention of "blazing fast porn downloads." Have they even done their market research?

Re:More info (2, Funny)

jd (1658) | about 4 years ago | (#33566040)

They did, yes. The porn testers have not, ummm, returned yet.

"At home" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33565764)

Who is their right mind would pay $350/month for Internet service at home? Sounds more like a company solution than home owner solution.

Re:"At home" (1)

jandrese (485) | about 4 years ago | (#33565784)

Maybe some who is really, really into BitTorrent?

Re:"At home" (1)

froggymana (1896008) | about 4 years ago | (#33566388)

They would probably block or throttle all bittorrent activity though...

Re:"At home" (3, Informative)

Mascot (120795) | about 4 years ago | (#33565844)

Where I live 400Mbit is about $1000/month (that has to be adjusted for the fact that the price and salary levels here are generally a fair bit above the US, but still). The 1000 Mbit option is "call us for price". I think you'd better be sitting down if making that call for a quote.

The only consolation is that we don't oversubscribe over here. You get what you pay for. But boy, do you ever pay.

Re:"At home" (1)

blair1q (305137) | about 4 years ago | (#33566352)

Get the 400 mbit and then sell wi-fi connections to your neighbors.

Re:"At home" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33565848)

$350 is nothing for many people, especially when you make your living off the Internet.

Re:"At home" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33565868)

Me?

Re:"At home" (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | about 4 years ago | (#33565932)

I'd easily pay that for my home office. I'm already paying $150/month for Comcast's 50Mb/s service.

Re:"At home" (1)

Mr. Freeman (933986) | about 4 years ago | (#33566080)

College students living in a house with ~5 people. $350/month five ways comes to $70 per month per person, which, depending on your situation, isn't incredibly bad. Put in a couple extra hours of work per month and you're done.

Re:"At home" (2, Interesting)

blair1q (305137) | about 4 years ago | (#33566392)

(stops laughing)

Realistic situation:

College students living in a house with ~5 people, $30/month five ways for 1-mbit service comes to $6 per month per person, which two of the people don't pay until you padlock their rooms with a sign saying "see me".

Unless the house is near an open wi-fi, then nobody even brings up the issue of getting internet for the house.

Gigabit? That's even faster than ... (4, Funny)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 4 years ago | (#33565794)

... the Chattanooga Choo-Choo!

Re:Gigabit? That's even faster than ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33566018)

Here comes the porn train. "Woo Woooooooooo!"

200 times faster? (5, Interesting)

Yvan256 (722131) | about 4 years ago | (#33565802)

Get 199 friends and split the bill to get 5Mbps for 1.75$US per month!

Re:200 times faster? (5, Funny)

CannonballHead (842625) | about 4 years ago | (#33566074)

Get 199 friends

This is slashdot. There goes that idea. ;)

Re:200 times faster? (1)

EnsilZah (575600) | about 4 years ago | (#33566214)

Not including the price of the infrastructure involved in splitting it, of course.

Re:200 times faster? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | about 4 years ago | (#33566302)

How hard can it be to have 200 wi-fi channels not interfering with each other?

To be honest, though, it would be a really good idea for an apartment block.

Re:200 times faster? (1)

EnsilZah (575600) | about 4 years ago | (#33566480)

You'd probably also have to deal with all the people claiming the wi-fi is giving them cancer and autism.
Actually, I used to live in a kibbutz which is a sort of semirural small town sort of thing, around 900 people in that specific one and they dealt with the ISP collectively, only got off dialup around 2003 though.

Re:200 times faster? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | about 4 years ago | (#33566552)

If you're splitting a gigabit connection between 20-200 users, better go with a wired solution. Faster, more secure, less interference, less problems.

Re:200 times faster? (1)

jd (1658) | about 4 years ago | (#33566382)

Just about any intelligent switch will do the trick. It's not like you need anything sophisticated.

Re:200 times faster? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33566340)

When I was in college we did that living in an off-campus apartment. We had one cable Internet connection with Ethernet cables strung to the next three apartments with 15 people sharing the same connection. Can anyone say neighborhood wireless co-op?

No, but (2, Insightful)

irright (1369385) | about 4 years ago | (#33565810)

I'd certainly pay $35 for 100 meg though.

Re:No, but (1)

irright (1369385) | about 4 years ago | (#33565870)

Looks like they actually charge $140 for 100meg.

Re:No, but (1)

Sancho (17056) | about 4 years ago | (#33566290)

I'm paying about $50 for 3meg. I'd pay $140 for 100meg (up and down) in a heartbeat.

I'd love to be able to stream my movie collection while I'm travelling.

Re:No, but (1)

Shakrai (717556) | about 4 years ago | (#33566372)

I'd pay $140 for 100meg (up and down) in a heartbeat.

You have too much money or too little life if you are willing to pay $140/mo for a home internet connection.

Re:No, but (1)

immakiku (777365) | about 4 years ago | (#33565884)

They have that option at $170.

Yet the price isn't bad (2, Informative)

T Murphy (1054674) | about 4 years ago | (#33565816)

If you could split it 7 ways, that would be a 18 MB line each at $50, which is a good deal compared to the semi-monopoly prices you usually get. Of course, this could vary depending on how close to a gigabit the line will actually get you (although it shouldn't be worse than the big ISPs, and may be significantly better).

Re:Yet the price isn't bad (4, Interesting)

PeterM from Berkeley (15510) | about 4 years ago | (#33565866)

Splitting it would be a huge win. You'd get surge access to a Gbit of bandwidth, and if everyone was "surging" at the same time, you'd get 18MB/s as you said. Considering I pay $30/month for less than 1MB/s..... Yes, I'd jump on this if I could split it.

--PM

Re:Yet the price isn't bad (1)

T Murphy (1054674) | about 4 years ago | (#33565898)

That makes two- just need 5 more, one of them knowing where to get a couple thousand miles of ethernet cable for cheap...

Re:Yet the price isn't bad (1)

ferrocene (203243) | about 4 years ago | (#33566332)

WiFi, my friend! We just put repeaters every 5 miles... :)

Re:Yet the price isn't bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33565960)

I hope you didn't mean to split it equally amongst 7 users. It would sit inactive 99% of the time. Overselling is a science when it's done right.

Government tax theft! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33565832)

Wow, "gigabit speeds"! And all you have to do is bend over to take it up the arse from BIG GOVERNMENT! I can't wait to start hearing the stories about how beaurocrats screw up the network! Idiot statists.

Re:Government tax theft! (4, Insightful)

emkyooess (1551693) | about 4 years ago | (#33565950)

Some (few) things are best provided in a monopolistic environment. Utilities (like power) and infrastructure (like this) are typically in that category. However, that's best in a public monopoly, not a for-profit, private monopoly.

New hardware? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33565838)

I have the base 30 Mbps for $58/mo at the moment, but if I remember correctly, when I tried connecting their (brand new) gateway to my Gigabit hardware it operated at 100 Mbps. It would seem strange to configure an interface to drop down to something less than the max by default, although I know that is possible to do. My guess is that they would have to swap out some hardware.

They are pretty good about delivering at 30 Mbps!

Well, that's the plan anyway (1)

overshoot (39700) | about 4 years ago | (#33565894)

At least until the telco and cable <strike>monopolies</strike>services can <strike>buy</strike>get to enough legislators to block them.

Re:Well, that's the plan anyway (1)

oracleguy01 (1381327) | about 4 years ago | (#33566184)

Which is a legitimate worry, these community owned and ran ISPs that actually have good customer service and reasonable prices threaten their monopolies. The big companies have made it easy to compete against them, since they have terrible prices and worse customer service. If the city I lived in had a city owned ISP, even if it was slightly more expensive, if it had better customer service I would use that over any of the big ISPs.

I really hope we see more cities doing this. And with wireless technologies like WiMax the barriers to entry can be a lot easier.

Re:Well, that's the plan anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33566218)

EPB already prevailed in court against the lawsuit from the cable industry.

That's the first hurdle (1)

overshoot (39700) | about 4 years ago | (#33566378)

Nothing new here. First they sue to block competition, and if the law doesn't support them they buy one that does.

Awesome.. (1)

iONiUM (530420) | about 4 years ago | (#33565910)

That's great, but I mean, according to this [physorg.com] (which I admit I don't know how accurate it is) it seems to indicate that the US is still pretty low in terms of overall connection speed.

Why does north america suck so much when it comes to technical infrastructure? It's kind of irritating, especially when this is apparantely the hub of the economic first world.

Re:Awesome.. (0, Redundant)

alanebro (1808492) | about 4 years ago | (#33565972)

You have to take into account the fact that North America is enormous compared to most other countries topping that list.

It's not feasible to think places like the midwest with many many miles between towns can offer high speed to the people that live between said towns.

Re:Awesome.. (4, Interesting)

Doc Ruby (173196) | about 4 years ago | (#33566096)

Then the Midwest might bring down the average speed. But there's absolutely no reason why San Francisco, LA, Chicago, NYC, shouldn't have the same high speeds as entire countries like Japan, Korea, etc.

However, the argument you're using isn't even a good one for the Midwest. Sparsely populated places are easy to reach with long fibers, and so cheap to bring high bandwidth to. It doesn't take a huge operation or investment to bring fiber to nearly everyone in Montana or Wyoming.

The real answer is that US the telecom network cartel has never been aggressive in bringing Internet to homes. Quite the opposite: every time there's a push to increase the reach or speed of the network, the telcos have been there to push back, claiming the new traffic load will kill the existing network, or some other malarkey. What they're afraid of is that more bandwidth creates more opportunities to compete with them, and gives them less time to milk ancient services for a dragged out period of pure profitability before investing in a new generation. And that's exactly what they've got, and what we're stuck with. Except when an org not in their cartel provides some actual competition, like this municipal network operator.

Re:Awesome.. (1)

theaveng (1243528) | about 4 years ago | (#33566474)

there's absolutely no reason why San Francisco, LA, Chicago, NYC, shouldn't have the same high speeds as entire countries like Japan, Korea, etc.

Nobody is that fast because..... well it's Japan and they love technology*. But the top US States (WA, CA, MA, CT, NY, NJ, DE, MD) are just as fast the top EU states.

So the US is essentially tied with the EU.

*
* Most Japanese connections are actually hi-speed DSL. About a decade ago the government paid to upgrade everyone's phone lines to DSL capability. That's why Japan has over 10 Mbit/s average. I wish the US government would do the same, or at least require phone companies to do it using their own funds. Universal DSL for everyone.

Re:Awesome.. (1)

jd (1658) | about 4 years ago | (#33566546)

The US is crawling with dark fiber. You don't have to pay to install something that's already there. Also, since wavelength multiplexing is now the in-thing, you need only have one cable running into a town. (The upper capacity for a single fiber is about 10 Tb/s. Just one fiber can therefore handle gigabit traffic for 10,000 homes. A single 24 fiber bundle will therefore support 240,000 homes - enough to support a decent-sized city in the US.) Running one more line from town X to town Y is as close to a zero cost as you can get.

A bigger cost is the metropolitan network itself. Manchester's G-MING didn't set itself up overnight, nor was it cheap. However, that's a one-off cost. Pay it and you're done. The biggest cost of all is the technical support needed. Network administrators (at least those who are any good) charge a fair bit. The on-call support needed won't be cheap either, especially as home systems were never designed to actually be pushed to any decent speed and most users will be using an OS known more for its security flaws and propensity to host zombies than for its usefulness. This kind of bandwidth is going to attract interest from the kind of people you really don't want pwning the computers.

Re:Awesome.. (3, Insightful)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | about 4 years ago | (#33566158)

There's no incentive to upgrade if the consumers are forced to pick from amongst X number of similarly-priced oligopoloies. I didn't spell that right, but I don't think most people know what that word means anyway so fuck it.

Anyway, in Canada there's not even that. I can get cable from Shaw or ADSL from Telus. Those are exactly all of my choices unless I want to go to dial-up.

Re:Awesome.. (1)

iONiUM (530420) | about 4 years ago | (#33566300)

My choices are Rogers or Bell. I know your pain ;)

Re:Awesome.. (1)

theaveng (1243528) | about 4 years ago | (#33566412)

according to this (which I admit I don't know how accurate it is) it seems to indicate that the US is still pretty low in terms of overall connection speed.

Lying with statistics. According to speedtest:

1 Russian Federation
2 United States / European Union (a virtual tie)
3 Canada
4 Australia
5 Brazil
6 Mexico
7 China

Well hawt damn... (1)

GPLDAN (732269) | about 4 years ago | (#33565958)

This here is Huckleberry Hound, tracking down what's coming up in broadband. And here's Pixie and Dixie to tell us what's in the box.

What's in the box boys?

A gigabit modem adapter.

Well how about that? I wonder if it works.

Bye bye Jynxie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUJttwvla7s [youtube.com]

Hooray Tennessee! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33565974)

Hooray Tennessee! Now customers will be able to download "THE PREZNIT IS A SOSHALIST NIGGER" chain letters and farm-animal pr0n at hundreds of times the speed of most cable lines!

Here in sweden... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33566042)

it's been available for a while for about $60/month. http://pirateisp.net/pris/

1GB for $350 has fanstastic potential... (5, Interesting)

Glasswire (302197) | about 4 years ago | (#33566054)

>> 'Mr. DePriest of EPB does not expect brisk demand for the one-gigabit service anytime soon. So why offer it?
Because there is a huge opportunity for resale or inclusion in basic services of multi-tenant (residential or business).
Give 10 businesses 100MB/s for $50 / month and you're making money or for offer it free and it's a cheap inducement lease space
Give 100 tenants 10MB/s for $10 / month and you're making more money or for offer free and it's a cheap inducement to renters

Re:1GB for $350 has fanstastic potential... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33566228)

EPB FIber would never allow it. They view all us local ISP's as their direct competition, even though they got $115M in stimulus dollars, a boatload of cash from the parent company..EPB Power... which is the local power monoply, and is owned by the city of Chattanooga.

The stimulus grant was to EPB to build out their smart grid network, however the only application that's made it onto their network so far is EPB Fiber, and to date, they've refused to open the network to anyone else.

Re:1GB for $350 has fanstastic potential... (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 4 years ago | (#33566308)

Ten businesses screaming: Our Internet's down!!!
Reseller: OMG OMG
ISP: Um, I see a single basic support plan to your building. It'll go in the low-priority queue with the others.
Reseller: Uh oh...

If it's one thing most businesses can't function well without anymore, it's Internet. Hell, with so many companies on laptops and servers on UPS/generators it's possible even a power failure will cause less productivity loss. I'd care much less about the 1 Gbps speed and far more about the SLA...

Only if it can maintain those speeds (2, Interesting)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about 4 years ago | (#33566482)

It is easy to offer gigabit speeds. You provide a line that signals at a gigabit, probably just Ethernet. The hard part is having the infrastructure above that which can maintain it. This is particularly the case if you have multiple lines.

My bet is that at that price, they have insufficient upstream. So you sell your gig line out and you discover that really you are lucky to get 100mbit at the best of times. Thus your customers are getting less than they paid for and so on.

Have You Had To Buy A T-1 Lately (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33566076)

In my area, T-1 internet access is costing around $500 per month. That's the special rate we get for having multiple internet Ts as well as several MPLS T-1s. What a bargain!?

For us, $350 per month gigabit access would be pure heaven. I'd gladly kill you for that service!

Sign me up (1)

Lord Grey (463613) | about 4 years ago | (#33566102)

If you include taxes and whatnot, I pay only slightly less than that now for a dedicated T1 with a four-hour downtime SLA. I'd trade the SLA for those kinds of speeds.

both ways? limited connections? latency vs colo? (1)

Kristopeit, Michael (1892492) | about 4 years ago | (#33566106)

i pay $125/mo for 1U of colo space with a 10MB connection, but i get that boths ways and it works under extreme load (many millions of hits per day/1000s of concurrent active connections in the past) and has extremely low latency (it is in one of googles old data centers in the bay area)... the same level of service, to my home would be worth $350 to me if i needed it, but 10MBs has served all of my needs. a hop to my house and back to the data center would be something i'd rather eliminate, but not paying for colo space would be nice.

residents in (-1, Flamebait)

nimbius (983462) | about 4 years ago | (#33566110)

Chattanooga elicited mixed responses at the announcement today of gigabit internet. Some residents questioned how it related to Obamacare and the socialist marxist conspiracies of which they have been so well appraised through the "talkybox glenn beck lives in." Others furrowed their brows in consternation, as rumors circulated that this newer, faster internet would affect the price of skoal chewing tobacco, beer, or both. Church sermons are planned to be held in the town center tonight as many religious leaders suspect this is a secret conspiracy by Islamic radicals to institute gay marriage.

Re:residents in (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33566270)

You covered everything except the global warming impact and PETA's position on the issue...

Re:residents in (1)

blair1q (305137) | about 4 years ago | (#33566404)

Tell them the part about the "precious bodily fluids".

Re:residents in (1)

edrugtrader (442064) | about 4 years ago | (#33566518)

Starting Score: 1 point

Moderation 0

    50% Flamebait

    50% Funny

Extra 'Flamebait' Modifier +6 (Edit)

Karma-Bonus Modifier +1 (Edit)

Total Score: 5
 

slashdot = stagnated

See? I was right all along! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33566194)

This just shows what can happen when private companies are allowed to compete without regulation to provide services much more cheaply and efficiently than the gov... oops, hang on, I'll try again.

...government bureaucracies try to implement services that could be done more cheaply and efficiently than the private secto...wait a second...

...

Shit.

Falling Prices (2, Interesting)

JackSpratts (660957) | about 4 years ago | (#33566226)

I can see this subscribed to by small businesses with data heavy uploads (film production companies, ad agencies etc). Spread across an office of 20 employees, $350 is peanuts when each worker is getting 50mps, assuming it's symmetrical.

However I think the price for the gigabit service will drop to something hotly competitive like $99 within 36 months as the electric utility begins poaching customers from the established players when it hits home that selling access to information is more profitable than burning coal.

It wouldn't surprise me if shareholders and even regulators eventually order a spinoff of this tail-wagging-the-dog broadband division, and it winds up with a cable co, where it all gets dialed back to the current offerings.

- js.

Re:Falling Prices (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33566542)

It wouldn't surprise me if shareholders and even regulators eventually order a spinoff of this tail-wagging-the-dog broadband division, and it winds up with a cable co, where it all gets dialed back to the current offerings.

EPB is a co-op, and it's already segmented the divisions, with the accounting being separate for each. The cable co certainly did try to sue alleging that cross-over would happen, but EPB won the case. If they try again, well, since it's ultimately the voters here who make the decision, and we're quite happy with the EPB (aside from a few disgruntled types), we'll just say screw you and keep on trucking.

Besides, technically the EPB doesn't produce power either, it's the middleman for the TVA.

Cringely's article from 2006 (1)

pspahn (1175617) | about 4 years ago | (#33566306)

Read [pbs.org]

Now, I know this isn't the same deal, but it sure makes the concept proposed in the article a much more attractive idea for subdivisions and local neighborhoods. I know that my apartment management company would probably go for this as soon as it became available. It makes our building more attractive to renters, and with around 30 units, it means they can either tack on the extra $10-15/mo to rent or simply include it as a perk for living there. Granted, I would still prefer to have my own personal connection, but this could provide (at least for me) a reliable backup in case something happens to my connection.

Unfortunately, it's capped at 5GB/mo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33566424)

But it will be the most incredible 40 seconds of Internet access you'll ever see!

Who really needs that much bandwidth? (1)

froggymana (1896008) | about 4 years ago | (#33566442)

Especially at a consumer level. You can only watch/download so much porn in one month before you hit other bottlenecks....

Re:Who really needs that much bandwidth? (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 4 years ago | (#33566508)

Good point.

As my friend Bill said, nobody needs more than 640 k.

1024 is way too much.

Here's what I'll do to beat the monthly cost... (2)

bogaboga (793279) | about 4 years ago | (#33566462)

Well,

Simply recruit 10 neighbors and hook them to a 10 port router and wallah! At 35 bucks plus taxes, it's cheaper than many solutions and the speed is almost guaranteed to be superb 100% of the time. How about that?

Amazing - now we're where South Korea was (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 4 years ago | (#33566492)

This is amazing.

Now we're where South Korea was ... a decade ago.

Except theirs costs 1/20th what we're hearing for the US.

how much bandwidth per node / headend backend? (2, Interesting)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | about 4 years ago | (#33566510)

how much bandwidth per node / headend backend?

Upstream pipes? (1)

Whatanut (203397) | about 4 years ago | (#33566536)

Aaaaand, what's the pipe they have to the rest of the world? I don't care if I've got 1Gb to my provider. The rest of the internet isn't going to make that experience any better than 1Mb... In many cases I find that 1Mb isn't any better than 56Kb.. There are just too many factors to make this a non-issue. Fix the upstream and maybe I'll get excited about the link to my house.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?