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!

Small Town Builds Its Own Gigabyte Network; Cost To Citizens $57/month

Soulskill posted 1 year,11 days | from the grassroots-gigabit dept.

The Internet 269

An anonymous reader writes "On Thursday, the board of O-Net gave approval for residents to get access to [full gigabit bandwidth] for the same price that they currently pay for a guaranteed download speed of 100 megabits per second — $57 to $90 a month, depending on whether they have bundled their internet with TV and phone service. ... the town realized that it couldn't attract technology-based businesses and that bandwidth was a challenge even to ordinary businesses. It came up with a plan — it would install a fibre network throughout the town that would connect to the larger inter-community network being built by the government at that time — the Alberta Supernet."

cancel ×

269 comments

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

bits and bytes (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,11 days | (#44330965)

Well, is it gigabit or gigabyte? Because the latter would be very impressive.

Re:bits and bytes (5, Informative)

icebike (68054) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331007)

From TFA:

On Thursday, the board of O-Net gave approval for residents to get access to a full gigabit (or 1,000 megabits) per second of bandwidth

I guess it was too much to expect someone posting as AC to actually click the link in the summary.

PRIVITAZATION (4, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331389)

The boondoggle that keeps picking your pocket, on the premise that if more people are inserted as middle-men, the cost of service will go down.

"Competition in the market" is true for goods produced through labour. It does not account for structural differences in the sale of services and delivery, or in extractive "rent seeking".

Re:bits and bytes (3, Insightful)

l_bratch (865693) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331431)

If we assume that the AC was just poking fun at the title/summary disagreement, then it was a fair comment.

Re:bits and bytes (2, Funny)

l_bratch (865693) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331461)

Now that I think about it, neither gave a frequency, so both can be correct. Perhaps the title was implying per eight seconds and the summary was implying per second.

Probably not though.

Re:bits and bytes (1)

hosecoat (877680) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331613)

From TFA:

On Thursday, the board of O-Net gave approval for residens to get access to a full gigabit (or 1,000 megabits) per second of bandwidth

I guess it was too much to expect someone posting as AC to actually click the link in the summary.

I guess it was too much to have the headline correct "Small Town Builds Its Own Gigabyte Network; Cost To Citizens $57/month"

Re:bits and bytes (4, Funny)

Spy Handler (822350) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331047)

It says Gigabyte not gigabyte... so it must mean the network features customizable voltages and clock speeds for easy-to-use overclocking and a good warranty policy.

Re:bits and bytes (1)

icebike (68054) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331215)

The title of the summary disagrees with the summary itself, but TFA says gigabit.

Re:bits and bytes (1)

Xicor (2738029) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331273)

neither. it says afterwards "100 megabits per second"... which is one tenth of a gigabit

Re:bits and bytes (1)

Xicor (2738029) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331297)

sorry, 1000megabits... is one gigabit.

Re:bits and bytes (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,11 days | (#44331689)

100 megabits is guaranteed to the internet. But you can probably talk to your neighbor at gigabit speeds.

Started out impressive (4, Funny)

MrEricSir (398214) | 1 year,11 days | (#44330985)

Headline says gigabyte network, then the summary says gigabit. Finally, it turns out it's 100mbps.

By the time you finish reading this comment it will be 56k.

Re:Started out impressive (4, Informative)

DarkFencer (260473) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331053)

for the same price that they currently pay for a guaranteed download speed of 100 megabits per second

The 100 megabit figure is what they currently have, not the new network.

The summary is right, but the subject (gigabyte vs gigabit) is wrong.

Re:Started out impressive (2)

Xicor (2738029) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331395)

lol i feel really upset that a small town like that gets 100megabits per second for only 57 dollars a month... in dallas texas, 57 dollars a month will get you max 10 megabits

Re:Started out impressive (1)

Bardez (915334) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331533)

Personally, I'm jealous that you live in the vicinity to know about Dallas pricing (i.e.: live there) and I don't.

Re:Started out impressive (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331619)

In bumfuck where I live, 57 dollars a month will get you 1.5 megabits. Within a bowshot you can get medicom cable or u-verse dsl but neither reaches here.

Re:Started out impressive (1)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331601)

The summary is right, but the subject (gigabyte vs gigabit) is wrong.

Perhaps they are using a Linux box with a Gigabyte motherboard as a firewall.

Re:Started out impressive (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,11 days | (#44331061)

No it doesn't, it clearly states that they will receive 1000mbps for the same price as they currently pay for 100mbps.

Re:Started out impressive (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,11 days | (#44331073)

So when will the Dice job ads on this site start advertising for "Slashdot Editor"?

Re:Started out impressive (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,11 days | (#44331115)

Wrong. You didn't read the article. It says they get gigabit for what they typically would pay for 100 megabit.

Re:Started out impressive (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,11 days | (#44331325)

The headline is incorrect, confusing bytes and bits (a typical mistake that is easy to make when talking about bandwidth). However the summary and TFA are consistent, referring to a gigabit/second.

Re:Started out impressive (-1)

Xicor (2738029) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331383)

lol it is the same confusing thing they do with gasoline in the US. they try and make it look better by using some retarded system. internet companies wouldnt be able to get away with giving 5 megabits per second of the majority of the people realized that one megabit is only 1/8 of a megabyte. gasoline is the same way, they use 9/10 of a gallon to price their gasoline... everyone thinks they are getting a full gallon for the price listed, but they are only getting 9/10.

Re:Started out impressive (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,11 days | (#44331437)

...

You are an idiot.

The 9/10 is 9/10th of a cent. So the price is really 3.999, instead of 3.99.

Re: Started out impressive (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,11 days | (#44331459)

I always interpreted that as an additional 9/10 of a cent to each gallon

Re:Started out impressive (2)

wooferhound (546132) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331537)

lol it is the same confusing thing they do with gasoline in the US. they try and make it look better by using some retarded system. internet companies wouldnt be able to get away with giving 5 megabits per second of the majority of the people realized that one megabit is only 1/8 of a megabyte. gasoline is the same way, they use 9/10 of a gallon to price their gasoline... everyone thinks they are getting a full gallon for the price listed, but they are only getting 9/10.

You are wrong. You are buying a full gallon, but where they get you is that while they are posting a price of $3.25 a gallon, they are actually charging you $3.259 a gallon. It's 9/10 of a cent more than the posted price. This pricing comes from the days of low priced gas when the price may have been 12.3 cents a gallon

Re:Started out impressive (1)

aliquis (678370) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331393)

Also we just had that 31 terabit story less than 24 hours ago.

Also it's not like $57 is very cheap.

That's socialism (0, Troll)

Hatta (162192) | 1 year,11 days | (#44330987)

Whargarbl!

Re:That's socialism (1)

i kan reed (749298) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331093)

On the other hand, it is socialism. Using the government to do something for the greater good of society.

Re:That's socialism (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,11 days | (#44331171)

Is it? I can't tell if it's owned by the government or owned by the individual members of the community. (Yes, there IS a difference.)

Re:That's socialism (1)

i kan reed (749298) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331219)

Who cares who owns it(well I'm sure the people of the town do), that's a distinction that drives the line between communism and other systems. Socialism is defined by the character of trying to maximize the social good of government, regardless of the common conflation between socialism and communism.

Re:That's socialism (2, Informative)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331373)

Socialism is defined by the character of trying to maximize the social good of government, regardless of the common conflation between socialism and communism.

Baloney. Socialism is government ownership of the means of production. Period. Sometimes that works well. Sometimes it turns out bad. But to say it is "socialism" only when it turns out well, is nonsense.

Re:That's socialism (2)

i kan reed (749298) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331563)

Rather than have an extended debate over an what amounted to an aside, I'll just concede the point and withdraw my original statement.

Re:That's socialism (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,11 days | (#44331633)

Socialism is government ownership of the means of production.

No, you're thinking of communism. And yes, there is a difference, despite their constant interchangeable use in conservative talking points.

Also, neither one is fascism.

Re:That's socialism (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331549)

Is it? I can't tell if it's owned by the government or owned by the individual members of the community. (Yes, there IS a difference.)

Yea, but supposedly it's a government of, by, and for the People, so theoretically they're the same thing here in 'Merica.

Theoretically.

Re:That's socialism (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331175)

No, it's politicians grandstanding buying things private industry has spent a trillion dollars developing. Without the latter, the former has trouble bringing you a loaf of bread.

Re:That's socialism (1, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331213)

Are you really this dumb?
Do you know what started this whole internet thing?

Nothing is stopping private companies from doing this, yet none of them do. Here in America #1 corporatist funtime land we can't get 1Gb connections for $570 let along $57.

Re:That's socialism (2, Informative)

Baloroth (2370816) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331457)

Nothing is stopping private companies from doing this, yet none of them do.

False [wikipedia.org] .

Re:That's socialism (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331489)

So 1 company does it in a couple towns, for more than $57 but less than $570 and you think that proves something?

Re:That's socialism (1)

ethanms (319039) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331653)

It's probably worth pointing out at this juncture that one of the things that spurs competition, growth and new technology is the fact that stuff is sold for a profit--sometimes a really huge one.

There would be far less drive to push further and further if it were not for the profit carrot being dangled... if everyone were buying from a municipal ISP for just about break-even costs, we might end up stagnating.

Re:That's socialism (1)

i kan reed (749298) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331239)

Tell me again how private institutions invented the Internet of all things. I'm pretty sure that that is one very clear example of something that was developed by government research.

Re:That's socialism (2)

dimeglio (456244) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331427)

Agreed. The Internet is a DARPA baby. I would say that corporations interests is what's preventing the Internet from progressing faster.

Re:That's socialism (1)

Kjella (173770) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331441)

No, it's politicians grandstanding buying things private industry has spent a trillion dollars developing. Without the latter, the former has trouble bringing you a loaf of bread.

Said over the Internet, brought to you by the US government (Internet -> ARPANET -> Department of Defense -> US government). Which is rather beside the point anyway, unless you're still fighting the ghost of early 1900s Soviet-era socialism what it means in a modern context is the government collecting taxes to provide public services which they may or may not be buying from private companies. There's no contradiction between a public road or a public hospital or a public whatever being built by private companies. But sure, give all the credit for everything to private companies. Let me guess, libertar... I mean libertarian?

Re:That's socialism (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,11 days | (#44331391)

The whole point of a government, and by definition its job.

Unfortunately, no American knows that anymore, because corporations told him government must be evil, because government "regulates the free market", which is another way of saying "forbids said corporations to abuse the citizens like the only law is that of the jungle". When in reality, US government IS said corporations, and the only reason anything is ever "regulated" at all, is because corporations fight each other, using the government as their weapon, so they can blame everything they do on it.

If America needs one thing, then it's an *actual* government. By the people, for the people.

But hey, I never got how US society managed to equal being social to being evil anyway... Being social is half the damn reason we humans are so successful in the first place! It's kinda our thing.

Re:That's socialism (1)

ethanms (319039) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331685)

Too much government control is bad.

Too much corporate control is bad.

Now let's sprinkle in corporate control of government through lobbying dollars and astronomical consultancy fees for former government officials...

People suck.

Re:That's socialism (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,11 days | (#44331451)

ironic isnt it it the demands of the free market lead to a socialist solution.

Seems they believe in the if you build it they will come school of economics as opposed to if if you subsidise us we might build it. Damn Unamerican if you ask me.

Gigabyte Network? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,11 days | (#44330993)

I didn't know the motherboard manufacturer makes NIC cards. That is certainly news to me.

Oh you mean Gigabit network. -.-"

Re:Gigabyte Network? (1)

thaylin (555395) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331183)

Well how else do you get a network interface built onto a motherboard, duh.

the Alberta Supernet (5, Insightful)

fustakrakich (1673220) | 1 year,11 days | (#44330995)

Canada.. figures.... Do that in the states and get sued into bankruptcy.

Re:the Alberta Supernet (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,11 days | (#44331021)

victory is ours again

Re:the Alberta Supernet (2)

firex726 (1188453) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331105)

Actually you don't even need to get sued; the big ISPs in some states have lobbied for laws that disallow municipal internet after one town successfully set up a network, because I think Comcast basically refused to provide them adequate service.

City not named in Summary (4, Interesting)

decipher_saint (72686) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331009)

Olds, Alberta
(Population eight thousand)

Getting high speed internet in Alberta anywhere outside a larger population centre has been virtually impossible, so it's interesting to see rural towns take the problem by the horns on their own with success.

Re:City not named in Summary (1)

dimeglio (456244) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331349)

There were delays in laying out the fibre but once they were shown all the pr0n they could get with 1gb, it motivated those workers to get it done quickly.

Though the question will be backhaul (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331479)

Offering gigabit to endpoints isn't that hard. Gig Ethernet is cheap these days, GPON is likewise cheap for metro type situations. However, you can hook all the endpoints up at gig but if your backhaul to other providers isn't good, then it doesn't matter. You can have "gigabit" but only to other nodes on the network.

So that'll be the real question is what kind of bandwidth they can buy to hook this network up to. That'll determine if it is really fast internet to homes and businesses or just a big LAN with slow 'net access.

Gigabit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,11 days | (#44331039)

Gigabyte divided by 8. Not the same thing.

Re:Gigabit? (1)

v1 (525388) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331141)

Gigabyte divided by 8. Not the same thing.

Though for practical purposes, I find dividing by 9 tends to give more realistic numbers.

Re:Gigabit? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,11 days | (#44331299)

Network or most serial PHY interfaces (e.g. Ethernet, Firewire, USB, I2C) are always specified with bit as the base units as the PHY level only worry the raw '0' or '1' and not payloads..

never happen in the states (1)

Revek (133289) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331065)

Its been attempted but usually fails due to local corporate citizens derailing it as some kind of communist love fest.

Re:never happen in the states (4, Insightful)

smooth wombat (796938) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331133)

No, it's because the three major providers in the U.S. sue the municipality for trying to offer what the provider refuses to do, and at a similar if not lower price. The companies claim they can't compete against the government entity.

It's like the batshit crazy ex who doesn't want to be with you but also doesn't want anyone else being with you.

Either way, you're screwed.

Re:never happen in the states (3, Interesting)

h4rr4r (612664) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331249)

I thought government was inefficient and can't do anything right? How would a super efficient private company ever have trouble competing?

These folks need to get their stories straight.

Re:never happen in the states (2)

smooth wombat (796938) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331429)

That's always my question every time some company royally screws up. Like the plant in Texas which blew up because they lied about how much explosive stuff they had on hand or in my local area, a paving company has to go back and redo some work they did because the work wasn't up to snuff.

Every time a company screws up I say something to this effect on my local board because some guy always whines about the government screwing up and how private industry is always better.

It's like the people who espouse "Free Markets!" yet cheered when the taxpayer was forced to pick up the tab for the sins of the financial industry. Either you believe in free markets and letting them do what they do with as little government intervention as possible, or you want the government to be there to clean up after your mess and thwart the free market through trading collars and other rules.

Re:never happen in the states (1)

thaylin (555395) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331483)

Higher level government is inefficient, and cant do anything right, local government on the other hand can be either.

Re:never happen in the states (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331539)

You could say the same thing about private enterprises. The bigger an organization gets, no matter government or business the less efficient it will tend to be. In my job I do a lot of "integration" with big companies, to facilitate passing data back and forth. Our timelines for these things are hours to days, depending on if they want to use our prepared systems or need more custom work. Their time lines are months to years. We also chronically find they are doing a worse job of security than we are.

Re:never happen in the states (1)

Kjella (173770) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331587)

Oh, oh I know the answer to this one. What the private companies are (or rather aren't) offering is the best anyone can do under normal, fair market conditions. So if the government can do it, it's because the government is awarding it indirect subsidies and siphoning off costs to be paid with taxpayer money in some unamerican commie conspiracy to destroy private enterprise and replace it with a protectionist government monopoly. Honestly, for some it's so deeply rooted in them that if the government appears to be doing anything at all better than private companies then they must be cheating somehow.

Re:never happen in the states (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,11 days | (#44331331)

Either way, you're screwed.

Or not.

Re:never happen in the states (1)

Njoyda Sauce (211180) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331453)

It's like the batshit crazy ex who doesn't want to be with you but also doesn't want anyone else being with you.

Either way, you're screwed.

It would seem that the individual involved here in your example would not be screwed - at all.

Re:never happen in the states (1)

JesseMcDonald (536341) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331589)

The companies claim they can't compete against the government entity.

This is an issue if the municipal system is subsidized with taxes, or funded through tax-backed municipal bonds, or receives special access to municipal right-of-ways, or any number of other things normal companies don't have access to. The municipality can easily undercut the competition because they don't have to pay for right-of-ways and, if all else fails, they can force people to pay for their service whether they want it or not. It's the same reason you don't see many private roads; given two otherwise equal roads, one private (toll) and the other public (tax-funded), no one is going to choose the toll road when they have to pay the taxes for the public one anyway, even if the tolls are ultimately less expensive.

Note that I'm not arguing against community-provided Internet access, just the government aspects. If the service was provided by a local co-op with no special ties to the municipal government, competing on equal terms, the company would have no cause for complaint.

Re:never happen in the states (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,11 days | (#44331629)

No, it's because it's illegal for government to compete with private enterprise engaged in a for-profit venture.

16 TV Theme Packages (2)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331071)

why can't we have something like that is usa?

Re:16 TV Theme Packages (0)

h4rr4r (612664) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331177)

Because the Tea party folks would go insane. That's socialisms! They don't want this or government in their medicare.

Re:16 TV Theme Packages (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,11 days | (#44331233)

why can't we have something like that is usa?

How dare you thinking in those socialist terms, high speed internet that is inexpensive !!! its a threat to society, how is NSA, CIA and FBI keep monitoring all of those bits, it will never happen.

Re:16 TV Theme Packages (1)

Jawnn (445279) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331285)

why can't we have something like that is usa?

You can. So stop whining and buy some Congressmen. If the telco's can do it, B.F. KS can do it. Right?

big media companies won't sell that way (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,11 days | (#44331509)

The big media companies that actually make, and own, the TV programs, will only sell their cable channels in bundles.

The Cable company primarily delivers product to the customer, provides maintenance, tech support of the infrastructure, and bills the customer. The cable companies would sell individual channels, but the media companies would let them.

Sweden (1, Informative)

Linux User 95 (2989793) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331097)

I live in Sweden and pay $5 per month for a gbit. It's partly sponsored by Microsoft's program for people with no hands, but still. Just saying.

And because many other people here also have gbits, torrents work wonders. US probably isn't the same.

Re:Sweden (2, Funny)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331167)

People with no hands? Then what's the point of Internet access?

Wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more!

Re:Sweden (2)

Linux User 95 (2989793) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331263)

We can still use computers with our mouth.

Re:Sweden (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,11 days | (#44331449)

I don't think he was asking how to use your COMPUTER's pointer ...

Re:Sweden (1)

thaylin (555395) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331507)

I guess the "Wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more!" was not obvious enough

Re:Sweden (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,11 days | (#44331525)

It was a joke. He was referring to porn and masturbating with your hands.

Re:Sweden (1)

aliquis (678370) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331527)

I don't really want to make fun out of that and your situation and I think his post really suck and was insulting and stupid.. And I'm a fellow swede.

Anyway, what I really want to say is of course that some people likely even can get paid for having Internet access using their mouth.

Which of course is totally off-topic and got nothing to do with the posts above.

Of course there's things one can enjoy on the Internet even without any hands. And as you've shown reading and commenting on Slashdot and using Linux are some of them.

Re:Sweden (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,11 days | (#44331607)

lol disabled fag, why would you even bring up your subsidy. eugenics failed us

$75 for 50Mbps right now (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,11 days | (#44331117)

I want my fiber please.

News From the Future... (1)

Stormy Dragon (800799) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331131)

Alberta Residents Complain About Internet Content Filtering Plan

Re:News From the Future... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,11 days | (#44331173)

Oddly enough you're more likely to have content filtered or throttled by American providers that have greased their way into the country.

America or as I like to call it "China Jr"

Re:News From the Future... (1)

Stormy Dragon (800799) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331227)

Not really. If I go to a public library, school, etc. there's all kinds of filters in place because busybody groups vote for laws requiring them "for the childrenz". There's no similar filters on the commercial ISP access I buy at home.

The problem with making the government your ISP is that eventually pressure groups are going to begin using the political process to limit what you can and can't do on it.

Re:News From the Future... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331369)

No, those exist because no one stood up to those idiots. The same busy bodies can do this to a private company as well. They try it all the damn time with TV.

Re:News From the Future... (1)

thaylin (555395) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331531)

Actually they exist because it makes sense to, it is a public places, In public places there is a very real need to filter some content. In the home that is a different story. As for private companies, I dont know about you but I know all the major ISPs do some type of filtering.

Re:News From the Future... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331561)

I disagree. Public resources should not be filtered. If someone is touching himself in a library arrest him for it.

Re:News From the Future... (1, Insightful)

mvdwege (243851) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331399)

Right, with a market solution you are at least sure of not filtering....Oh wait. [slashdot.org]

Fucking libertards who always drag in their fairy-tales when this comes up. Move out of your Mom's basement into the real world, and until you do, shut up while the adults talk, OK?

Re:News From the Future... (1)

Stormy Dragon (800799) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331523)

Yeah, and if you're upset tumblr did that you can go to flickr. Or photobucket. Or DeviantArt. Or imgur. Or...

If the municipal ISP starts filtering, you're pretty much SOL.

Re:News From the Future... (1)

thaylin (555395) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331553)

Wait, huh? It would be the repubes who would argue with a market solution you are sure of not filtering, not the libtards.

Most Alberta internet is poo (1)

maliqua (1316471) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331135)

I wonder if they will notice a large population influx. /me calls his realtor

From TFA.. (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,11 days | (#44331145)

"Because we're a community-owned project we get to balance out profitability versus what's best for the community."

I'm from America, so could someone please explain to me what that last part of the sentence means. Does it have to do with Q4 fiscal projections, or stocks, or something else? I just don't understand what this whole "community" thing is.

Re:From TFA.. (1)

thaylin (555395) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331569)

It means as a business you get to give as much in campaign contributions, since it is best for your community.

Re:From TFA.. (1)

PPH (736903) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331635)

Its the basis of socialism: The needs of the collective over those of the individuals.

57$ for gibabit internet? (2)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331181)

I'd still rather pay 5.70$ for 100 megabits, which would still 20 times faster than my current connection at nearly 40$ per month. Gotta love monopolies in small towns.

Re:57$ for gibabit internet? (1)

neminem (561346) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331521)

It's about 20 times after than my current connection at 50 dollars a month, too (which, granted, also comes with a phone landline we didn't want, and aren't allowed to not pay for). Small town not required: I live in LA county, in one of the top 50 most populous cities in the US (though really, LA county is just one giant city anyway, certainly as far as laying cables would go.)

Re:57$ for gibabit internet? (1)

aliquis (678370) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331559)

Yeah, I have a hard time seeing any benefit with 1 gbps atm, and on average the bandwidth used/needed won't change much so it's not much to write about or charge for.

Lots of unused fiber (5, Informative)

icebike (68054) | 1 year,11 days | (#44331189)

There are lots of towns in the US, big and small. that have un-used fiber laying around, which was installed the last time they ripped up their streets for remodel, or which was built into subdivisions as a conditions of their permitting process. Most of this is used to tie a few buildings public buildings together, or (an a sad number of cases) not used at all.

There entire counties that have fiber running to every minor town. (Google county fiber network = 14 million hits).

Most of these towns don't have fiber running everywhere. So turning it on ind the downtown core is often avoided simply because it will cause a clamor for fiber everywhere from the rest of the tax payers. Some of it has been in the ground so long nobody knows if it works or not. Since it wasn't being used, in some cities it has been damaged by construction and nobody was even aware of it. Some towns are putting up FREE PUBLIC WIFI, using their fiber. And almost as soon as it is turned on the "won't somebody think of the children" crowd shows up demanding censorship. There are a lot of political land mines to dodge when putting this stuff to use. So far too much of it sits idle.

o-net? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,11 days | (#44331583)

o-net?

o-face.
o-yeah!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>