×

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!

ITU Standardizes 1Gbps Over Copper, But Services Won't Come Until 2015

timothy posted about 4 months ago | from the if-you-transmit-it-they-will-come dept.

Networking 153

alphadogg writes "The ITU has taken a big step in the standardization of G.fast, a broadband technology capable of achieving download speeds of up to 1Gbps over copper telephone wire. The death of copper and the ascent of fiber has long been discussed. However, the cost of rolling out fiber is still too high for many operators that instead want to upgrade their existing copper networks. So there is still a need for technologies that can complement fiber, including VDSL2 and G.fast. Higher speeds are needed for applications such as 4K streaming, IPTV, cloud-based storage, and communication via HD video, ITU said." Meanwhile, I'm hoping Google Fiber, FIOS, and other fast optical options scare more ISPs into action along both price and speed axes.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

153 comments

1 Gbps is a dream (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45674393)

I'd be happy with 10 Mbps since I'm stuck with 3 Mbps from CenturyLink unless I want to do a deal with the devil... err, I mean Comcast Small Business... and have them dig a trench for the cable to my house through the yard and landscaping.

Re:1 Gbps is a dream (2)

macpacheco (1764378) | about 4 months ago | (#45675561)

G.fast is faster than VDSL2, but this 1 Gbps to the subscriber is very unrealistic. 1 Gbps speeds will only work for customers ultra close to the wiring closet.
But let's face it, even 200-300 Mbps is ultra fast internet (copper or not).

35Mbps down, 3Mbps up from GVT in Brazil already here. In my case, I couldn't get a stable connection with one modem they supply, had to get the better modem, at about 400 meters external cable run plus another 100 meters internal cabling, in this distance, G.fast might pump my top theoretical speed (as detected by the modem from 50Mbps to maybe 200Mbps).

Prices up to 35mbps are very affordable, the next step (50/5) has a large price jump.
So the issue isn't the technology here, it's cost (AND RANGE).
In our case, telcos are already moving towards 100% fiber.
While VDSL2 is (and G.fast will be) very range limited, GPON and P2P fiber can handle up 10 Km fiber runs with performance to spare, allowing for less wiring cabinets across town in a pure fiber network vs today's mixed fiber/copper networks, back to my telcos case, they were forced to design the network with a maximum cable run of 600 meters to every customer they service, requiring one wiring cabinet (in reality a tiny remote POP).

If the same network were designed from scratch using GPON only, they could have opted for up to 3Km to each customer, resulting in 1/10th in the number of cabinets, also GPON / GEPON fiber splitting allows ultra dense cabinets, with a 20 fiber strands handling two thousand customers (compared to 2000 copper pairs for the same two thousand customers). Copper cabinets for 1000 users is the size of a double door refrigerator, while GPON for 2000 users is less than the size of a mini bar.

So I'm not sure there will be too many business cases for maintaining copper networks, except in rare cases of extremely dense networks with top notch (recently laid) copper.

Finally, VDSL2 modems already use way more power than GPON subscriber units, I bet those G.fast modems will be small power hogs !

This tech is coming to the action way too late. Fiber will take over.

Re:1 Gbps is a dream (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45676163)

and have them dig a trench for the cable to my house through the yard and landscaping.

You know, you can pre-install your own conduit for them to simply pull the fiber (or copper) through, right?

What ISPs? (1)

Stormy Dragon (800799) | about 4 months ago | (#45674403)

Meanwhile, I'm hoping Google Fiber, FIOS, and other fast optical options scare more ISPs into action along both price and speed axes.

Why would FIOS scare Verizon DSL into action?

Re:What ISPs? (4, Informative)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about 4 months ago | (#45674481)

These limitations might keep the others from getting too scared;

"The drawback with G.fast is that it will only work over short distances, so 1Gbps will only be possible at distances of up to about 100 meters. The technology is being designed to work at distances up to 250 meters, though transmission speed is slower at that distace. "

Re:What ISPs? (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 4 months ago | (#45674681)

"These limitations might keep the others from getting too scared; "

That isn't as much of a limitation as you seem to imagine. The majority of costs are "last mile". This means you can take fiber to a city block (more or less) and still get 1Gb to homes (or offices). In many cases this is far cheaper than fiber to the door.

It also means a possibly-viable alternative (competition) to cable. I know LOTS of communities that would like to have a competitor to cable.

Re: What ISPs? (2)

colinnwn (677715) | about 4 months ago | (#45674913)

If it is really only good to 100 m, then it seems like a significant problem. My pole drop to first jack is 40 m. In even a decently compact residential street that would only get you 6 lots out from the node not including their pole drop.

Re:What ISPs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45676247)

"These limitations might keep the others from getting too scared; "

That isn't as much of a limitation as you seem to imagine. The majority of costs are "last mile". This means you can take fiber to a city block (more or less) and still get 1Gb to homes (or offices). In many cases this is far cheaper than fiber to the door.
It also means a possibly-viable alternative (competition) to cable. I know LOTS of communities that would like to have a competitor to cable.

No, not at all. You can't just run this out to the property line and join it at a splitter like you can with coax cable services. You have to place an actual piece of "smart" equipment within the max span distance. You'd have to go out and install special equipment (similar to a "node" in cable/fiber terminology) within the max span distance of the actual structure you're servicing. 100 feet means you'd have to put several of these on a single normal city block, in some cases one per subscriber.
The uplink from those points is usually going to actually run over fiber back to the telco's CO. Even at 250 feet span lengths, you're still looking at a node per block in a best case scenario. If you've already got the fiber run that close to the customer structure, the cost of hanging fiber the rest of the way is actually going to a similar cost, if not actually cheaper.
And once word gets out that the lines are glass instead of copper, in shitty parts of town people will quit stealing your copper lines for recycling.

Re:What ISPs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45675863)

What this couples extremely well with (at least here in the UK) is FTTC - high speed fiber to the green cabinet at the end of your road and DSL only over the 100m distance from the cabinet to your door. Distance from the exchange won't the the limiting factor any longer. BT are already rolling this out with the current DSL technologies letting you get ~100M, and the limiting factor right now is the DSL part.

Re:What ISPs? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45675057)

Wow, you are one dumb motherfucker. Verizon isn't the only ISP in the world. I bet you're one of those people who thought that AOL was "the internet" back in the 90s too.

Re:What ISPs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45675199)

Well AOL might not have been "The Internet" but at least they invented Email.

Re:What ISPs? (1)

Stormy Dragon (800799) | about 4 months ago | (#45675663)

No, but it's the only ISP here, as it is many other places. I was sarcastically pointing out that fiber providers won't drive copper providers to provide better service because in many parts of the country they're the same company.

Still won't fix monopolies (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 4 months ago | (#45674423)

This still won't fix the problem of some ISPs having a monopoly over some areas, such as Télébec in small Québec regions.

Re:Still won't fix monopolies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45674503)

Or CenturyLink in Seattle. I'm paying $69 per month for less than 1 Mbps. That's the fastest connection available in my neighborhood. Most people around here are Microsoft fans or cultists so Internet connections just aren't important to them.

Re:Still won't fix monopolies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45674627)

No way, under Mbps? That's ... painful.
I'm not technically in Seattle, but still in the attached surrounding city areas and I have 25/10. I had to sell my soul to Comcast for it though.
I wish there was an ISP around here that wasn't run by a giant bag dicks. I'd even consider 1mbps if it wasn't Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Century Link, or Verizon.

Re:Still won't fix monopolies (1)

XaXXon (202882) | about 4 months ago | (#45674729)

You don't get cable? I have comcast and get ~30 Mbps in Seattle for less $.

Re:Still won't fix monopolies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45675041)

Comcast is at capacity in my neighborhood, and they're too cheap to dig-up the streets to add capacity. Underground service looks nice, but it is very expensive to update service. Comcast's agreement with the city is that they will offer service to the entire area that they were granted a monopoly in, but the city has never fined Comcast for refusing to provide service so many of us here in Seattle are just screwed. We can't get cable TV or cable Internet. With the new mayor that is a huge Comcast fan and anti-Internet, we're probably not going to get better connectivity for at least a decade.

Re:Still won't fix monopolies (2)

vux984 (928602) | about 4 months ago | (#45674775)

That's strange... I'm just north of the border, and small out of the way places can get satellite from companies like xplornet.

Looking a their site; for 69.99 CAD, you'd get 5Mbps down, 1Mbps up; with 50GB transfer limit. That's not all that bad really, especially compared to what you have now. Granted satellite is going to have markedly higher latency, and doesn't really compare to regular broadband... but for someone in your case (where regular broadband doesn't reach) its very decent.

Re:Still won't fix monopolies (3, Informative)

SirCowMan (1309199) | about 4 months ago | (#45675639)

It's not a deal, just switched to dsl from this. There is a $3-400 setup charge, contracts run typically 3 years, and it's $25/mo or so penalty to break early. Which probably would be okay if you saw those speeds. Have a look at their throttling policy, after 55mb you'll see about 3% of this for the next few hours. Also, many things are blocked or effectively blocked until 2 or 3 am ... Such as Apple authentication servers. If you have say, an Apple TV it won't be able to access iTunes libraries on your Mac due to this. That latency... For something like Slashdot, not an issue, but ads or media streams like Facebook will open hundreds of connections to CDNs to get images etc., which compounds the effect of delay, particularly where multiple DNS resolutions are required. I used an aggressive squid proxy and dnsmasq, both setup with ad filtering to make it useable. The service would be alright for those who live rurally and understand the limits of satellite, but the throttling and filtering of services makes it a viable option only for the most remote and desperate.

Re:Still won't fix monopolies (1)

vux984 (928602) | about 4 months ago | (#45675987)

Ok, I certainly won't argue that some companies are better than others... but xplornet in particular at least its a 1 year contract, $99 setup fee.

As for throttling, that I don't know first hand; as i only know a few people that have it, and don't have it myself. The official policy apparently is here:

http://www.xplornet.com/traffic-management/htv-itmp/ [xplornet.com]

And it appears to state that the top users will be throttled in 15 minute intervals to 50% of the maximum speed. And they are also disclosing that they throttle p2p traffic, online storage etc to 300kbps.

This certainly validates your claim to a point; and it certainly is something that one should be well aware of going into a product like this.

The service would be alright for those who live rurally and understand the limits of satellite, but the throttling and filtering of services makes it a viable option only for the most remote and desperate.

That's fair. I agree completely that even most light broadband packages are worlds better than anything you can get with satellite, because - physics.

However, I'm still skeptical that something like this would be anything but categorically better than a sub 1Mbps dsl line for most users.

Re:Still won't fix monopolies (1)

Camaro (13996) | about 4 months ago | (#45676267)

Just a little info here from an xplorenet user (indirectly). SaskTel resells xplorenet's "4G" satellite service to rural customers. It has been a bit better than the previous version we were on before. The introductory program was free hardware and installation and 5Mb/30GB for $55/month for a year. After the year the price went to $85/month. Recently they reworked the packages and we moved to 5Mb/40GB for the same money. One can also go to 10Mb speeds for more $$ or less monthly transfer amounts. With these plans there is no throttling. Theoretically if one goes over their cap, you pay more for whatever you use. I haven't tested this yet, though.

Re:Still won't fix monopolies (1)

macpacheco (1764378) | about 4 months ago | (#45675743)

Satellite at this price, wow ! But even then.
Far more logic would be 4G Wimax (towers have 3-4Km range in flat areas, and can service hundreds of active customers), a single satellite can't provide the same bandwidth that a dozen 4G towers (with 6 antennas each) can.
4G latency is 50-100ms, while satellites are typically 1 second plus.
So you can think of VOIP / online games with 4G (even though it won't be a great experience, while satellite it's a non starter).

And there's the unlicensed 5GHz alternative (WISP), that need line of sight, but use very cheap equipment, the WISP can afford to have a small tower every Km (largest cost will be power, rent rather than the WISP tech), in areas where customers are desperate for better service, they might be able to put towers rent free in exchange for providing a viable alternative to wired monopolies.

Re:Still won't fix monopolies (1)

macpacheco (1764378) | about 4 months ago | (#45675683)

You must be some 2Km away from the DSLAM (11k ft), or you're on some old, rusty cable.
This is the kind of situation that would be a non event on fiber.
4G (Wimax) wireless or 5GHz wifi should outperform this easily.
I support customers that use extremely cheap p2p unlicensed radios with 2,5Km links (with clear line of sight) delivering 45Mbps up+down performance with ease.

Re:Still won't fix monopolies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45674675)

The only fix for that is mandatory copper sharing. That forces the phone company to lease the customers' lines to any qualified competitor.

That's easier to mandate than fiber sharing given the fact copper was laid out a long time ago and usually using public money. So you don't have to worry that 'nobody will lay the fiber if they are forced to share it with competitors).
Once this is mandated you get very good competition (although the competitors have to be very brave since the entrenched monopoly usually tries everything they can to make them fail (a famous DSL provider in France even has a special option on their website for lines that were wrongly rewired by the entrenched monopoly...).
Since this new ITU norm breathes new life into DSL, this is very good news as it means that mandatory copper sharing can still be very useful in this day and age.

But without copper sharing, the incumbent has no incentive to upgrade equipment. Ever.

Re:Still won't fix monopolies (1)

weilawei (897823) | about 4 months ago | (#45674921)

The only fix for that is mandatory copper sharing. That forces the phone company to lease the customers' lines to any qualified competitor.

Did you miss the article yesterday where AT&T said they wouldn't lease to Google until they were qualified? If Google can't do it, your little homebrew shop is going to get squished.

Re:Still won't fix monopolies (1)

macpacheco (1764378) | about 4 months ago | (#45675629)

In most cases the bottleneck is the cost of laying a brand new network with as little as possible visual pollution / cost and regulatory hurdles.
Designing a network with a limit of 250 meters cable run to each customer will require an insane numbers of G.fast DSLAMs, this alone makes this tech kinda dead on arrival.
GPON allows for 10Km fiber runs, and share a fiber strand for up to 64 users, the fiber is then split as it gets further away from the wiring cabinet. 10Km fiber runs are a waste for dense areas, but leave the flexibility to service a few faraway customers in many cases.
Comparing tech that requires 250 meters cabling range to tech that can do 10000 meters without trouble isn't even fun !

But the issue of monopoly first requires a new entrant interested in overlaying the network, in such a case, I see zero business case for G.fast.

Without doubt, G.fast will be a niche technology.

Go ALL THE WAY OUT! (4, Interesting)

rtkluttz (244325) | about 4 months ago | (#45674457)

DAMN... at least once every 10 years pick a broadband solution and BUILD IT ALL THE WAY OUT. To every last house in the US. This never ending cycle of new technology coming out and being bult out to the edges of the big cities and then the next new technology hits and they stop where they are go back to the center of the big cities and start building out again.

Just once. Get something other than dialup and satellite all the way out to every last house in the US.

Re:Go ALL THE WAY OUT! (4, Informative)

amorsen (7485) | about 4 months ago | (#45674533)

How? It has been a long time since there was any significant improvement in performance when the wires are longer than 1 km. ADSL2+, VDSL1, and VDSL2 perform about equally badly beyond that distance. You can go faster by doing G.SHDSL over multiple line pairs, but that is generally not economical.

Re:Go ALL THE WAY OUT! (1)

swb (14022) | about 4 months ago | (#45674645)

Given how many people have abandoned their landlines for cell-only service, I would think G.SHDSL wouldn't be so uneconomical given how many idle pairs there are.

Re:Go ALL THE WAY OUT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45674791)

Rural folk haven't abandoned landlines. Mobile service can be pretty bad out there, especially considering that in many places there's no mobile service competition.

Re:Go ALL THE WAY OUT! (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 4 months ago | (#45675777)

My mother uses the mobile phone as long as their are plan minutes left; nights and weekends. During the day she uses the landline and is where she receives calls, because land-lines are very inexpensive. Mobile-phone only would actually be more expensive for her because she uses the phone a lot.

Re:Go ALL THE WAY OUT! (1)

amorsen (7485) | about 4 months ago | (#45674797)

Fair enough on the line pairs, but the head end equipment seems to be more expensive than VDSL2 DSLAMs -- and you need at least twice as many ports if you want to bundle. I do not know the actual prices though. The CPEs seem rather more expensive too.

The only actual experience with G.SHDSL.bis was playing in a lab with OneAccess routers. Those are certainly more expensive than a typical CPE for home use, but they also have more features.

Re:Go ALL THE WAY OUT! (1)

silas_moeckel (234313) | about 4 months ago | (#45675005)

Step one replace the wires. We have known this since what the 70's? I can get commodity 100ge optics that go 40km today x3 that at 10ge. And I can get more than one on a fiber pair with cheap CWDM.

Re:Go ALL THE WAY OUT! (1)

Miamicanes (730264) | about 4 months ago | (#45675917)

Exactly. Signal processing has definitely improved, but a huge chunk of the range-improvement has come from better provisioning and wire management. 10 years ago, if you called SBC for DSL, the salesperson would query the mainframe to look up your distance, and if it said you were even a single foot more than their arbitrary cut off for g.Lite, as far as SBC was concerned you weren't getting DSL. Period, end of story. AT&T is still pretty anal, and you practically have to know as much about VDSL2 and outside wiring as their own sales people AND be threatening to cancel within the first 30 days of signing up for new service to get them to roll a truck to even TRY getting anything faster than 18/1.5mbps with U-Verse... but it's still a huge improvement over 10 years ago, when they'd have just told you to have a nice day & transferred you to someone who'd try selling you dialup.

The fundamental problem we have in most of the US today is the fact that AT&T's capital investment horizon is roughly 5 years. If they won't see guaranteed ROI within that horizon, they won't do it. And since they've colluded with Comcast to get states to pass laws making it damn near impossible for uppity municipalities to take matters into their own hands and lay their own fiber, they can get away with it... for now.

Re:Go ALL THE WAY OUT! (0, Troll)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 4 months ago | (#45674611)

way to not understand the industry at all. lol

All phone and data services have a cost to deploy, cost to maintain, and a maximum distance from the head office they can serve.
DSL is cheap to deploy, moderate to maintain and can serve a moderate distance from the CO
Cable is cheap to deploy, cheap to maintain and can only serve a very short distance from the CO requiring a lot of repeaters and such.
Fiber is enormously expensive to deploy, Enormously expensive to maintain but can serve very long distances from the CO

Last report I saw on Obamas broadband initiative was that it cost $80 BILLION dollars to increase the number of people that could get broadband from 96% to 98%. The remaining people would cost hundreds of billions more to get broadband to, because they are up on mountains or out in the Dakotas. And that's just regular DSL and Cable. How much do you think it'd cost to do fiber? More than our GDP that's for sure.

The problem isn't cities. In cities even copper can do gigabit service easily. It's the rural areas that are the problem.

Re:Go ALL THE WAY OUT! (2)

chipperdog (169552) | about 4 months ago | (#45675025)

"Fiber is enormously expensive to deploy, Enormously expensive to maintain but can serve very long distances from the CO" Fiber costs about the same to deploy new as copper, has proven cheaper to maintain, can go long distances (even 100 KM optics are becoming quite affordable) and can provide MANY revenue generating services for the operator of the line...I know a telephone coop that is replacing much of their failing 50-75 year old twisted pair outside plant with fiber because it ended up being cheaper than the 600 or 1200+ pair cables they would be running otherwise....The problem is with the private and investor owned telcos, capital expenditures cut into the executive boards' bonuses so they are usually cut.

Re:Go ALL THE WAY OUT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45675361)

This. With fibre you get to trade. You can pay more for the glass or more for the transducers that'll light the pipe up. If you're running 5m across a couple of racks you buy the cheap transducers and use expensive glass, because you're only buying 5m of it, "expensive" glass doesn't cost that much for a 5m length. If you're running 50km then you buy expensive transducers and cheap glass, because 50km of glass adds up fast.

When you put stuff in the ground or hang it from the sky you've got to pay guys to put it there. Aside from some one-shot training about how to not smash the glass up so it's useless, the work is the same no matter if you pick glass or copper. They don't much care, it comes on a big reel, they pull it through the ducts or hang it off posts and keep going until they get to wherever the contract says they're going. So it costs roughly the same.

For an incumbent this all looks very expensive because to remain relevant you need to do it yesterday and they planned to replace their copper very slowly, over many decades if at all. But too bad, sucks to be them.

Re: Go ALL THE WAY OUT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45675399)

Enough with the freaking "this"!!!

Re: Go ALL THE WAY OUT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45675721)

That.

Re:Go ALL THE WAY OUT! (1)

macpacheco (1764378) | about 4 months ago | (#45675837)

This was true 3+ years ago.
Splicing equipment price dropped about 80%.
Today there's even mechanical splicing, regular splicing requires service vans to carry a generator to produce electrical juice to run the splice equipment, mechanical splice allows all equipment to fit in a handbag and requires no power.
Consider my telco (a competitive nationwide carrier) has recently announced they're phasing out copper, new installs will be 100% fiber, and over time they will start migrating VDSL2 customers to fiber in areas that get fiber for new customers.
I was co-founder of a small telco here in Brazil, and I'm still in this business, so I know a thing or two about this (not the nationwide telco I'm a customer of).
And if the economics adds up in Brazil, you can be sure it will add in the US ! Same mix of large metro areas, separated by hundreds of miles of rural areas, and some metroplexes like Boston->Washington (Sao Paulo -> Rio de Janeiro).
But I'm using VDSL2 / ADSL / 5GHz technology (fiber is used in less than 10% of my customers, but this was zero just 2 years ago).

Re:Go ALL THE WAY OUT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45675121)

The problem isn't cities. In cities even copper can do gigabit service easily. It's the rural areas that are the problem.

And yet, despite that claim, there are many of us here that *live in cities* that get sub-3 Mbps "broadband."

Trust me, the problem exists in the cities as well as in rural areas.

Re:Go ALL THE WAY OUT! (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45675177)

Sonic.net has found it rather easy to deploy fiber. They hang it up on telephone poles, like everything else. Google does this, too. It's actually cheaper to deploy fiber than copper, because copper metal is actually quite expensive these days.

Copper is cheaper only because it's _already_ deployed. But Sonic's amortized cost per household is something like $200, excluding termination equipment. Not that bad for deploying brand new infrastructure to existing households.

Re:Go ALL THE WAY OUT! (1)

chipperdog (169552) | about 4 months ago | (#45675717)

Mod parent up.... New deployment is cheaper with fiber vs. copper.....And you have more revenue opportunity for each fiber drop - "unlimited" number of phone lines, many data possibilities, cable TV and video services, not to mention the ability to sell ancillary services to other utilities such as remote meter reading and load control/demand response. And with much of the thin gauge copper pairs currently in place exceeding 75 years old in much of USA, the wire is reaching EOL...

Re:Go ALL THE WAY OUT! (1)

egcagrac0 (1410377) | about 4 months ago | (#45675749)

Last report I saw on Obamas broadband initiative was that it cost $80 BILLION dollars to increase the number of people that could get broadband from 96% to 98%.

It would cost less to pay people $500/year for the next few decades to live without broadband. (Some people will gladly take this tradeoff.)

We can learn a lot from dystopian science fiction [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Go ALL THE WAY OUT! (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 4 months ago | (#45675845)

DSL is cheaper than cable overall, because generally the copper wires already exist almost everywhere. Cable wires very often do not exist and can be very expensive to lay out.

The bigger snag though is that this infrastructure is all privately owned by monopolies. Ie, the phone company owns the wires (but there are laws requiring them to share), and cable companies own the cables (and they never share), and so forth.

When the original phone cables were laid out it in the US was because of subsidies and fees and a federally granted monopoly that required them to reach all residences. Cable companies and whoever lays out fiber do not have all these things, they most certainly have no requirement whatsoever to reach as many customers as possible and if they think there's no profit in stringing cables to West Podunk then they won't do it.

Re:Go ALL THE WAY OUT! (2)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 4 months ago | (#45674655)

It's not always built out to the edges of the cities. I live in a city and FIOS was built to the suburbs around me. If you live on the edge of the city, near the suburbs, you might be able to get FIOS. If not, you are stuck with Time Warner Cable or Verizon DSL. And Verizon is more and more trying to disown DSL users so that's not really an option. Since going without Internet isn't an option either, I'm forced to take what Time Warner Cable offers me at the price they demand and they know it so there's no reason for them to improve service, speed up the network, or drop their prices.

Re:Go ALL THE WAY OUT! (1)

NotSanguine (1917456) | about 4 months ago | (#45674817)

It's not always built out to the edges of the cities. I live in a city and FIOS was built to the suburbs around me. If you live on the edge of the city, near the suburbs, you might be able to get FIOS. If not, you are stuck with Time Warner Cable or Verizon DSL. And Verizon is more and more trying to disown DSL users so that's not really an option. Since going without Internet isn't an option either, I'm forced to take what Time Warner Cable offers me at the price they demand and they know it so there's no reason for them to improve service, speed up the network, or drop their prices.

Exactly. I live right in one of the largest US cities (given that you talk about Verizon *and* Time Warner, I suspect we're in the same place) and FIOS isn't even being planned for my neighborhood. I have DSL (from Megapath, nee Covad, nee Speakeasy) and live about 350-400 meters from the CO and get a pathetic 3Mb/sec down and 768kb/sec up. I refuse to go with Time Warner as they are about as close to pure evil as you can get. Verizon's DSL offering is even more pathetic and their customer service is legendarily horrendous. However, in the suburban areas around here, it's common to get 30-70Mb/sec down and 5-10Mb/sec up with FIOS for (assuming you bundle TV and phone) a hefty (IIRC, ~$200/month) fee.

None of these providers care about providing quality service as they have a captive audience. What makes it worse is that consolidation among the smaller DSL ISPs is creating new monsters who cut services like DNS hosting and shell access while shipping customer service to India. Sigh.

Re:Go ALL THE WAY OUT! (1, Insightful)

XaXXon (202882) | about 4 months ago | (#45674749)

I don't think you understand how long it would take and how expensive that would be.

The US is one of the least dense countries in the world -- especially at its population.

Re:Go ALL THE WAY OUT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45674871)

I don't think you understand how long it would take and how expensive that would be.

The US is one of the least dense countries in the world -- especially at its population.

think you might have that backward... lol

Re:Go ALL THE WAY OUT! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45674909)

Countries like Sweden and Finland are even less dense and have much higher broadband availability. Yes, they are two orders of magnitude smaller than the US, but that means that they also have two orders of magnitude less money to spend.

It can be done. The only thing blocking it in the US is politics. The government prefers to spend many hundred times more than that on the military, even though it doesn't really need to.

Re:Go ALL THE WAY OUT! (1)

egcagrac0 (1410377) | about 4 months ago | (#45675801)

The US is one of the least dense countries in the world -- especially at its population.

Talking to the population around here, most of them seem pretty dense. Where they live is pretty spread out, however.

Re:Go ALL THE WAY OUT! (2)

Miamicanes (730264) | about 4 months ago | (#45676217)

> The US is one of the least dense countries in the world -- especially at its population.

Yes, and no. If you ignore the most rural 20% of the US, Britain, and France, there's really not that much of a difference. France & Britain have some pretty huge expanses of rural wilderness, too. Yeah, we have hundreds of thousands of square miles of desolate wilderness out west and in Alaska, but those areas are about as relevant & meaningful to the daily lives of people who live in Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, DC, and Miami as they are to the lives of people who could walk out their front door and throw a rock into the Seine or Thames. If you limited gigabit internet to the subset of Americans who live at the average population density of Watford, Cambridge, or LIverpool, the overwhelming majority of us would STILL be enjoying gigabit internet.

Re:Go ALL THE WAY OUT! (1)

dkf (304284) | about 4 months ago | (#45675035)

pick a broadband solution and BUILD IT ALL THE WAY OUT. To every last house in the US

Getting broadband to every last shack in backwoods Montana is going to be expensive. Why not do something more sensible and pick a (local) population density that will mandate service, and ignore the rest? If people want to live out in the boonies, they need to accept that some infrastructure-heavy services aren't going to be very available.

The bad state of things in some cities is something else entirely, and a good reason for tarring and feathering some politicians...

Re:Go ALL THE WAY OUT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45675365)

The same failed argument was made about electricity and phone service in rural areas as well. If the republicans are serious about undoing everything FDR has done, they might as well tear down the power grid feeding their rural homes.

Re:Go ALL THE WAY OUT! (1)

egcagrac0 (1410377) | about 4 months ago | (#45675877)

Rural electrification doesn't require a separate circuit for each customer. Everyone wants pretty much the same 60 Hz signal as everyone else.

If you try running all the houses in a neighborhood in parallel with communications circuits, you end up with party lines - not inherently bad with TCP/IP, but you may have difficulty all watching video at the same time.

The upper limit... (1)

TWX (665546) | about 4 months ago | (#45674459)

...will again become the host that one is connecting to and that side of the network getting there, rather than one's last-mile issues.

As for FIOS, I can't deny that I worry, ever-so-slightly, about security. From what I understand, there's a single fiber pair that feeds numerous subscribers, and there's some kind of fan-out kit that sends the same signal from the service provider to all of the subscribers, and that phone company active equipment on each customer premises filters out all but the traffic intended for that subscriber. My concern is that if the phone company's gear gets hacked by either another subscriber in the segment then they'll be able to get at traffic that they shouldn't.

Re: The upper limit... (1)

colinnwn (677715) | about 4 months ago | (#45674555)

How do you think cable works?

Re: The upper limit... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45674703)

Why, everybody has a dedicated coax from HBO's office direct to their living room, naturally.

Re:The upper limit... (3, Interesting)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 4 months ago | (#45674683)

Ya no... that's not how it works at all.
It's called a Fiber Mux: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplexing [wikipedia.org]
We do the same thing with your data when it's on copper, it's just a different kind of signal, in that case we use a DSLAM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dslam [wikipedia.org]
(which is just another kind of mux)

If someone has hacked into your ISP to the point that they have control over the fiber muxes, you have a hell of a lot more to worry about than them listening to your phone calls.

Also, keep in mind that with copper, all they have to do is walk out to the pedestal behind your house and attach alligator clips to the right pair of wires and a spare speaker. And people DO do that, we've caught them. Hacking our muxes would require them to breach dozens of layers of security. It would be quite a feat.

Yes it IS how PON (Passive Optical Networks) work (1)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | about 4 months ago | (#45676135)

Ya no... that's not how it works at all.
It's called a Fiber Mux: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplexing [wikipedia.org]

That's how things like DSLAMs work: One (or more for redundancy) fat pipe for backhaul, a router or switch in the box at the curb, and individual links carrying only each customers' data to the DSL modem at each customers' site.

Passive Optical Networks work like cable internet (and vaugely like the original party-line coaxial Ethernet): A pair of light frequencies (one outgoing, one incoming) connect the box at the curb, through attenuator/splitters, to each of a handful of sites. (The one I saw had an 8-bit hardware address and handled 250 subscribers per fiber.)
  - The outgoing signal contains the traffic for all up-to-250 subscribers on a given link and the subscriber box rejects traffic for all but its own destination(s).
  - The incoming traffic takes turns on the other light frequency. (Timing information is on the outgoing link and they run a link-level protocol to assign slots as requested when the subscribers' boxes have traffic, rather than a collision/retry protocol.)
Advantage is you need about half as many optic transcievers to implement it, while optical splitter/combiners are really cheap.

So, yes, it would be trivial to build a box that could listen to the fiber and tap your neighbors' downbound traffic. (You MIGHT be able to tap the upbound traffic from SOME of your neighbors, too, with a sufficiently sensitive optic receiver and if the fiber joints and splitter/combiners have enough discontinuity to reflect enough of their inbound light.)

As long as you can math your way out of a problem (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45674471)

no one will hardware their way out of a problem. Lowest cost possible, with the savings passed on to the customer. Yeah right.

Focus less on tech, focus more on competition! (4, Insightful)

OhPlz (168413) | about 4 months ago | (#45674477)

I'm stuck in copper-land thanks to the phone monopoly in my town, and the copper we have can't reliably transfer data at faster than 8Mbps. 15Mbps was great when it worked, but the disconnects were frequent. The residents in my town are never going to see gigabit speeds over our copper infrastructure. The phone company has no reason to improve it. There is no fiber alternative, Verizon pulled out of our state. Our cable TV monopoly is equally disinterested in provided higher speed service. This is probably a significant challenge all over the United States. We need to find a way to revive competition and get these legally-sole-provider-in-the-region companies to offer improved service.

DirecTV forced cable companies to up their HD offerings by making over a hundred channels HD in one go after launching some new satellites. Before that, none of the cable MSOs would bother. We need a similar antagonist in the ISP space.

Re:Focus less on tech, focus more on competition! (1)

amorsen (7485) | about 4 months ago | (#45674575)

Band together with your neighbors and share a fiber through wireless links (or more fiber if it is possible to get digging permits). It is a bother, but it is pretty much your only chance. It tends to require a fairly tight knit community to work well, but in some cases it manages to bring the community together.

Re:Focus less on tech, focus more on competition! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45674717)

I have thought about doing something like this, but I'm not even sure where to get started with getting the main line to our area. Would like to know what those cities who started their own ISP did. I would put in the leg work and try and get the community in on it.

Re:Focus less on tech, focus more on competition! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45674943)

Make the government form a publically owned company that builds and maintains the fibre infrastructure and auctions out the bandwidth to several ISPs. Relying on privately owned fibre networks makes about as much sense as relying on privately owned highways.

Re:Focus less on tech, focus more on competition! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45675263)

8Mbps would be amazing!! Alas, I'm stuck in a location on the peninsula in the San Francisco Bay Area where the best available is 768Kbps/384Kbps. That's K... as in kilo-bit. The technician chuckled after measuring the loop length.

Re:Focus less on tech, focus more on competition! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45675611)

Hey! Don't worry. The MARKET is doing its job. Not EVERYONE needs high-speed internet. It is only needed by the people to whom it is relatively easy to provide and are willing to pay GOBS OF MONEY for it.

Re:Focus less on tech, focus more on competition! (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 4 months ago | (#45675899)

They may need to restart the plan that worked for the phone system. Take that unbridled greed and focus it in a certain direction. Grant them a monopoly (greed) if and only if they provide service to every residence (focus). In addition a law could demand sharing of physical infrastructure (which came about in the US after the monopoly was dismantled). Now it won't be like the phone system because the current political undercurrent won't abide fee structures for poor residents and the like, so it would still remain a luxury service.

We all know what axis ISPs will move along. (1)

jeffb (2.718) (1189693) | about 4 months ago | (#45674507)

Meanwhile, I'm hoping Google Fiber, FIOS, and other fast optical options scare more ISPs into action along both price and speed axes.

Why would they move along an axis that significantly reduces profits or increases costs, when they can continue to throw legal caltrops under the wheels of progress [slashdot.org] ?

There's room for argument over how expensive it would be to buy more backhaul capacity or reduce subscription fees, but there's little doubt that buying utility commissions and legislators is a lot cheaper.

Re:We all know what axis ISPs will move along. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45674581)

ISP's have upgraded their networks for the last 2 decades
i remember when cable internet topped out at 1mbps and everyone thought it was super fast because DSL was only 256kbps

20 years ago 19k for $50 was average
today i can pay $60 including taxes and modem rental for 20mbps to time warner. $50 if i drop it to 10mbps

Re:We all know what axis ISPs will move along. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45674747)

when they can continue to throw legal caltrops under the wheels of progress?
 
Riiiight. Because wanting a competitor to have to abide by the same rules and regulations as the rest of the industry is "legal caltrops?"
 
Why is it so much to ask that the playing field be level? That's all AT&T was asking for. Why should Google be exempt?
 
And don't get me wrong, I'm sure that AT&T isn't above pulling something from their bag of Dirty Tricks(tm) but that's not what's happening here. When the government sets out rules and regulations for an industry I don't think anyone should get a pass for any reason. Your tax dollars may have been part of what paid for that infrastructure but the government has also gleaned their fair share of AT&T dollars in the areas of taxes and fees that Google is trying to not be subject to. If the regulation is faulty then call a spade a spade, don't make AT&T be the scapegoat for bad regulatory practices.

Re:We all know what axis ISPs will move along. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45675059)

AT&T is dumb company and ~$33 a share!

1 Gbps for 100m only (4, Informative)

timeOday (582209) | about 4 months ago | (#45674545)

The drawback with G.fast is that it will only work over short distances, so 1Gbps will only be possible at distances of up to about 100 meters. The technology is being designed to work at distances up to 250 meters, though transmission speed is slower at that distace.

OK. So long as G.fast is an improvement over what they're using now, that's a good thing. But until/unless I can get 1 gbps at my desktop, I don't think they should be allowed to advertise it as "Gigabit Internet."

This is the typical phone company thing... "buy Internet service from us!" How fast will it be at my house? "Um, we have no idea!"

Re:1 Gbps for 100m only (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45674819)

As someone who has lived in apartment buildings for his whole life, I feel much better about the chances of living below 100 meters from the utility/telecom room where the service provider's fiber links end. Installing fiber in the building is becoming easier and cheaper thanks to the new methods, but not having to change anything is still cheaper.

Um, we have no idea!"

The probability of telecoms utilizing technicians, let alone engineers at the customer service: zero.

Re:1 Gbps for 100m only (1)

weilawei (897823) | about 4 months ago | (#45675085)

If you want a service guarantee like that, you pay out the ass for a service level agreement. Otherwise, they'll happily sell you unlimited unobtanium for $9.95/mo + regulatory fees.

Re:1 Gbps for 100m only (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 4 months ago | (#45675915)

"In order to determine speed to your residence, please enter your address and phone number so that we can contact you with high pressure salespeople at inconvenient times."

Stupid headline. (5, Insightful)

ericloewe (2129490) | about 4 months ago | (#45674549)

"1 Gb/s over copper" is something that's existed for a looong time.

1 Gb/s over a single crap twisted pair copper on the other hand...

Re:Stupid headline. (1)

ausekilis (1513635) | about 4 months ago | (#45674617)

It's not even true "1Gb/s" as they would have you believe. It's notional 500Mb/s down, 500Mb/s up, only on the order of 100m. Considering AT&T says their nodes are more like 300m away, that's still a lot of infrastructure to build out.

Until that competition from Google or FiOS comes to town, you can bet that the local C-men will continue to have nicely padded wallets.

Re:Stupid headline. (1)

Freshly Exhumed (105597) | about 4 months ago | (#45674647)

1 Gb/s over a single crap twisted pair copper on the other hand...

I'm willing to pay extra for special monstrous wires so that the data has more warmth and power.

Re:Stupid headline. (4, Funny)

ericloewe (2129490) | about 4 months ago | (#45675191)

Hmm... Are you willing to pay some 3 orders of magnitude more for 4 non-crap twsited pairs made of pure* 99,99999999999678774% copper, plus only the finest nylon money can buy from a factory in China, the finest gold plating in the world and a RJ-45 connector, crimped to perfection by Japanese crimping masters, with an unbreakable tab. Plus, an engineer** will personally test the cable and hand-paint arrows on it so that you know in which direction the data flows better, allowing you to experience more of your audiovisual library than you thought possible. We'll also throw in free shipping if you live in the US. If you're really lucky, your cable works just as well in either direction, so it's like playing the lottery, only better! ***

http://www.amazon.com/Denon-AKDL1-Dedicated-Cable-Version/dp/B000I1X6PM [amazon.com]

* Purity may vary between 98,0% and 100%
** Is not guaranteed to be an electrotechnical engineer. May be some schmo who draws nice arrows, under supervision from a civil engineer or a robot who has been taught to draw arrows and is supervised by the janitor who was taught to press a red button in the event of a breach of Asimov's laws of robotics.
*** Purchasing this cable is nothing like playing the lottery, playing the lottery gives you an tiny chance of something good coming out of your investment.

18,000 feet from the central office (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45674665)

and we only get .8MB speed - and i'm grateful for that (although i have seen connections in the 1Mbps range)

the Verizon on-line service tool said 'service not available,' but a little social engineering with the local business office got us the service

I just don't see it. (1)

p51d007 (656414) | about 4 months ago | (#45674667)

Crosstalk alone I would think would be an issue. Pumping that kind of data, even if it is digital, the amplitude on the line would introduce crosstalk I would think. Granted, it is analog, but a 33.6 fax over copper causes headaches. I just wish people would give up the fax machines, and use secure scan to email. Trying to get a V.34 modem to work on a VoIP line is a headache since most network guys (for obvious reasons) locate the ATA box in the equipment room, by the time you string a RJ11 cord all the way to the fax, the signal level has dropped to the point that there isn't enough current on the ring signal to trip the relay to tell the fax to answer the line. Then, introduce a little attenuation into the line, after the handshake signal, and you end up with it doing multiple retrainings trying to get a connection fast enough to send a document. I just wish fax machines would DIE DIE DIE.

Re:I just don't see it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45675161)

There is no "digital". Everything is a waveform, amplitude has little to do with it. " Granted, it is analog, but a 33.6 fax". Well, by your own definition, that would be digital. But it's still a waveform... You're thinking because it's in the voice baseband a fax is analog?"by the time you string a RJ11 cord all the way to the fax, the signal level has dropped to the point that there isn't enough current on the ring signal to trip the relay to tell the fax to answer the line." Um, current flows in a loop, it'll be the same current anywhere along the line. If phone companies could send analog across twisted pair a century ago, the fact you can't do it now is your fault, not the wiring, signalling or connector choice.

"Vectoring" is about canceling crosstalk. (1)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | about 4 months ago | (#45676225)

Crosstalk alone I would think would be an issue.

Yes, it is. The standard is largely about canceling crosstalk. (Look for "vectoring" in TFA.)

Without the standard's crosstalk cancellation feature, but with everything else according to the standard, the speed drops by a factor of five.

200Mbps over these short hauls is not to sneeze at. But it's not such a big deal, either.

Top official in Obama birth mystery killed (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45674695)

Top official in Obama birth mystery killed - Loretta Fuddy

Woman lone fatality in Hawaii plane crash

http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/top-official-in-obama-birth-mystery-killed/ [wnd.com]

"A key Hawaii official in the dispute over Barack Obama's birth certificate - who lifted state restrictions to allow the White House to present the document to the public - has died in a plane crash.

Loretta Fuddy, the state health department director, was the only fatality among nine people aboard a Cessna Grand Caravan that went down at about 3:15 p.m. on Wednesday while heading to Honolulu.

Richard Schuman, president of Makani Kai Air, told NBC that the other eight people aboard were rescued from the site of the water crash.

KITV-TV in Honolulu reported Fuddy had been on health department business. Keith Yamamoto, the department's deputy director, also was aboard and survived.

Makani Kai officials said it was was the company's first fatality.

WND has reported since before the 2008 election on the dispute over Obama's birth documentation.

Fuddy took over the agency when Gov. Neil Abercrombie took office.

USA Today reported on a statement from Abercrombie.

"Our hearts are broken," he said. "Loretta was deeply loved and respected. She was selfless, utterly dedicated and committed to her colleagues in the Department of Health and to the people of Hawaii. Her knowledge was vast; her counsel and advice always given from her heart as much as from her storehouse of experience."

Recently she had been working on the state's Obamacare website.

On the subject of Obama's background, Abercrombie, who claimed to have had a relationship with Obama's parents in Hawaii as a fellow student, vowed to settle the dispute once and for all but finally gave up, insisting his hands were tied.

Read all the arguments in the birth certificate controversy, in "Where's the Birth Certificate?" and check out the special reports, banners and bumper stickers on the subject.

Abercrombie told the Honolulu Star-Advertiser regarding Obama's birth documentation: "It actually exists in the archives, written down." The London Daily Mail reported, however, Abercrombie "suggested that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health."

Later, Obama asked for copies of the document, and under Fuddy, the state instantly waived a long-claimed ban on reproducing long-form birth certificates. On Fuddy's instructions, copies were produced and delivered to Judith Corley, a private attorney for Obama.

Fuddy had written to Obama: "We hope that issuing you these copies of your original Certificate of Live Birth will end the numerous inquiries received by the Hawaii Department of Health to produce this document."

Immediately after the delivered copy was posted on the White House website, however, numerous computer graphics and software experts declared it fraudulent.

The birth certificate dispute centers on the constitutional requirement that a president be a "natural-born citizen." Some argue that even if Obama was born in Hawaii, he was does not qualify because his father was a Kenyan citizen.

Still a live issue

The one official law enforcement investigation into the issue, conducted on the orders of Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio, concluded the document posted by the White House is a forgery.

Arpaio has said the investigation is ongoing and more evidence has been discovered to bolster his team's conclusion.

WND reported Mike Zullo, the lead investigator for Arpaio's Cold Case Posse in Arizona, has contributed evidence to a court case pending before the Alabama Supreme Court.

He has testified that the White House computer image of Obama's birth certificate contains anomalies that are unexplainable unless the document had been fabricated piecemeal by human intervention, rather than being copied from a genuine paper document.

"Mr. Obama has in fact not offered any verifiable authoritative document of any legal significance or possessing any evidentiary value as to the origins of his purported birth narrative or location of the birth event," he explained. "One of our most serious concerns is that the White House document appears to have been fabricated piecemeal on a computer, constructed by drawing together digitized data from several unknown sources."

Zullo also has noted that the governor of Hawaii was unable to produce an original birth document for Obama, and it should have been easy to find.

See some of Zullo's evidence:

More recently, Grace Vuoto of the World Tribune reported that among the experts challenging the birth certificate is certified document analyst Reed Hayes, who has served as an expert for Perkins Coie, the law firm that has been defending Obama in eligibility cases.

"We have obtained an affidavit from a certified document analyzer, Reed Hayes, that states the document is a 100 percent forgery, no doubt about it," Zullo told the World Tribune.

"Mr. Obama's operatives cannot discredit [Hayes]," the investigator told the news outlet. "Mr. Hayes has been used as the firm's reliable expert. The very firm the president is using to defend him on the birth certificate case has used Mr. Hayes in their cases."

The Tribune reported Hayes agreed to take a look at the documentation and called almost immediately.

"There is something wrong with this," Hayes said.

Hayes produced a 40-page report in which he says "based on my observations and findings, it is clear that the Certificate of Live Birth I examined is not a scan of an original paper birth certificate, but a digitally manufactured document created by utilizing material from various sources."

"In over 20 years of examining documentation of various types, I have never seen a document that is so seriously questionable in so many respects. In my opinion, the birth certificate is entirely fabricated," he says in the report.

Investigator Douglas J. Hagmann of the Northeast Intelligence Network reported this month that in October an affidavit was filed in a court case, under seal, that purportedly identifies the creator of the Obama birth certificate.

He said Douglas Vogt, an author and the owner and operator of a scanning business who also has an accounting background, invested over two years in an investigation of the authenticity of document.

Vogt, along with veteran typesetter Paul Ivey, conducted "exhaustive research of the document provided to the White House Press Corps on April 27, 2011 - not the online PDF, a critical distinction that must be understood," Hagmann said.

"Using their combined experience of 80 years in this realm, they conducted extensive examinations of the âcopy' that was used as the basis for the PDF document. They acquired the same type of equipment that was used back in the late 1950s and early 1960s in an attempt to recreate the document presented as an âauthenticated copy' proving the legitimacy of Barack Obama. Instead, they found 20 points of forgery on that document and detail each point of forgery in the affidavit," wrote Hagmann.

"Even more interesting, Mr. Vogt claims to have identified the âsignature' of the perpetrator, or the woman who created the forged document, hidden within the document itself. Her identity, in addition to the identity of other conspirators and their precise methods are contained in a sealed document supplementing the public affidavit."

Grounds for impeachment

Last month, WND columnist Christopher Monckton wrote that the controversy he calls "Hawaiigate" should be "the central ground of impeachment."

"First, the dishonesty is shameless and in your face. Mr Obama's advisers, once they realized the âbirth certificate' was as bogus as a $3 bill, knew that if they simply went on pretending that $3 bills are legal tender the hard-left-dominated news media would carefully and continuously look the other way, pausing occasionally to sneer at anyone who pointed out that, in this constitutionally crucial respect, the âpresident' has no clothes," Monckton wrote.

"Secondly, not one of the numerous agencies of state, as well as federal government, whose duty was and is to investigate the Mickey-Mouse âbirth certificate' has bothered even to respond to the thousands of requests for investigation put forward by U.S. citizens."

He said that in Hawaii last year, he watched "as a senior former state senator called the police and, when they came, handed over to them compelling evidence that the âbirth certificate' had been forged."

"The police, correctly, passed the file to the state's attorney general, a âDemocrat,' who did nothing about it," he said.

"In Washington, D.C., I watched as a concerned citizen from Texas telephoned the FBI and reported the âbirth certificate' as being a forgery. They said they would send two agents to see him within the hour. No one came."

One of the highest profile skeptics has been billionaire Donald Trump.

Trump said he can't be certain that Obama is eligible to be president, and he pointedly noted that a reporter who was poking fun at the issue admitted he can't either.

Trump repeatedly has insisted Obama has not documented his eligibility. At one point, he offered $5 million to the charity or charities of Obama's choice if he would release his passport records and authorize the colleges he attended to release his applications and other records.

Trump argues that those documents would show whether or not Obama ever accepted scholarship or other aid as a foreign student, which could preclude him from being a "natural-born citizen."

Trump's conversation with ABC's Jonathan Karl started with Karl noting that Trump took on the "not serious" issue of eligibility.

"Why does that make me not serious?" Trump demanded. "I think that resonated with a lot of people."

Karl replied: "You don't still question he was born in the United States, do you?"

"I have no idea," Trump said. "I don't know. Was there a birth certificate? You tell me. You know some people say that was not his birth certificate. I'm saying I don't know. Nobody knows, and you don't know either. Jonathan you're a smart guy, and you don't know."

When Karl admitted he was "pretty sure," Trump jumped on the statement.

"You just said you're pretty sure ... you have to be 100 percent sure," he said. "Jonathan, you said you're pretty convinced, so let's just see what happens over time.""

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/12/loretta-fuddy_n_4433761.html [huffingtonpost.com]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2522374/Health-director-Loretta-Fuddy-dies-plane-crash-Hawaii.html [dailymail.co.uk]
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/12/hawaii-obama-birth-certificate-fuddy/3996657/ [usatoday.com]
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/12/21872811-health-director-who-approved-obama-birth-certificate-dies-in-plane-crash [nbcnews.com]

Unless you're in North America (0)

FuzzNugget (2840687) | about 4 months ago | (#45674803)

Then it won't come until... ever.

Re:Unless you're in North America (0)

DaMattster (977781) | about 4 months ago | (#45675073)

Yup, the telecom nazis have no interest in bringing anything resembling high speeds at affordable prices. Heaven forefend, it might be socialist!

Re:Unless you're in North America (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45675569)

Just stop with the "socialist" bullshit. It's already a regulated industry and the reason for the lack of competition has just as much to do with the government regulations as it has to do with anything else. Once you pull your head from your ass you'll see that the government is the quintessential obstructer of competition in the question of regulated utilities.
 
You're just another unenlightened dickhole who wants to act like anything that goes wrong rests on the shoulders of industry. Godfuckingforbid you look at who holds the ultimate reigns of power here.

Re:Unless you're in North America (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45675819)

holds the ... reigns of power

holds the ... reins of power

100 Meter limit (1)

chipperdog (169552) | about 4 months ago | (#45674831)

Since it only work for 100 meters, you're just as well off putting in a Cat-6 or multimode fiber pair and run 1000B-T or 1000B-SX between the points and skip the extra CPE and other equipment...

My ISP will get this around 2030 (1)

Creepy (93888) | about 4 months ago | (#45674985)

My telecom just rolled out 40Mbit service, about 10 years after Comcast did the same. I don't expect to see this any time soon unless Comcast uses it (they're Fiber-to-the-Neighborhood and then copper, so it's possible). I still won't do business with Comcast, even if I can basically make pricing a wash with bundling. I also could get a DirecTV bundle but giving up DISH would be hard, plus I don't give a rip about sports, which is kind of the focus of DirecTV.

What is the point? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 4 months ago | (#45675367)

Even as current tech slowly inches faster, our caps are going down.. So we get 1g to the house which is cool, but use our monthly allocation of data even faster, which is not cool.

The real problem (1)

stox (131684) | about 4 months ago | (#45675407)

Prior to divestiture, AT&T would replace the copper loop between the CO and home every 25 years. Post divestiture, SBC ( Masquerading as AT&T ) will not replace copper until it rots into the ground. When it does get around to replacing it, the loop runs to an RT or equivalent instead of the CO. One of the biggest excuses for the substantial increases in your phone bill was for maintenance of the local loop. They have had more than adequate time to replace copper with fiber, but have chosen to pocket the difference instead. Now, after taking all the money for the maintenance that was not done, they want us to pay again for the new loops they will inevitably have to install.

G.fast distance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45675735)

if G.fast distance from CO office to home is 100 meters, then good luck - we're not going with another DSL fiasco installation again.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...