
AT&T Pretends It, Too, Will Build A 1 Gigabit Network  - mtgx
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130409/12014922636/hours-after-google-announces-google-fiber-austin-att-pretends-it-too-will-build-1-gigabit-network-there.shtml
======
CaptainZapp
This reminds me a bit of the situation we had in Zurich. The (city owned)
electric utility had a few hundred million reserves and decided to invest it
into a fiber network.

Actually - since the utility was owned by the city - the decision was based on
a popular referendum, which sailed through. Needless to say that the
established telcos and cable providers fought tooth and nail to kill the
referendum.

The interesting thing was that Swisscom (the largest telco and ex-federal
monopolist) argued that fiber is not necessary and too costly.

After EWZ (the utility) started construction the private providers went into
hyperventilation mode and started their own construction. Later the networks
merged into one fiber network.

The network is managed, and I think wisely so, in a way that EWZ grants equal
access to private ISPs which then compete for customers. They don't act as an
ISP.

While in the first step construction was in the most dense areas of the city
the network is now extended to the entire city. Extension was also accepted by
popular referendum.

Would construction not have been started by a government owned utility (well,
that's us the citizens - we don't necessarily see government as the enemy) we
could be sure to wait an additional 10 years until private entities would have
deemed it profitable enough to step in.

~~~
kalleboo
> The network is managed, and I think wisely so, in a way that EWZ grants
> equal access to private ISPs which then compete for customers. They don't
> act as an ISP.

This is the model I see as ideal and it always baffles me why it's so rarely
mentioned as an option. Make the fiber network a public grid like roads,
water, sewer, power. Then sell access to private companies to deal with the
connectivity, services (TV/VoIP) and support. I'd say the technology is mature
enough that we don't need competition to pick what kind of network works best
anymore.

edit: Rephrased: I don't understand why the cities would give so much free
stuff to Google for them to set up their fiber network instead of just...
setting up their own fiber network that's then actually owned by the public.

~~~
jthol
That is simple. The city doesn't know what it's doing. They know Google does.
They don't have to give any money to do it, just not charge Google to put
their stuff in. Essentially they have to do nothing, get an ass-load of credit
for doing it, and if it all goes wrong... well how can you blame them for
trusting the company that some people literally think IS the internet?

~~~
walshemj
Even AT&T knows how to run a service that requires customer contact/billing as
telecoms does. Google has zero experience in both building/running/maintaining
physical telco plant.

And Google has terrible /nonexistant customer service Ernestine the operator
would be a major improvement in customer service for google.

~~~
_mulder_

      Google has zero experience in both building/running/maintaining physical telco plant.
    

The network Google is deploying is nothing more than a bunch of glorified
Ethernet network switches. I'm sure they have quite enough experience
building/running/maintaining networks.. especially since it's well known that
they get their own kit built specifically for them.

The Customer Service is an issue, but I think their innovative approach to CS
could be one of the biggest benefits, throwing brains at problems as opposed
to more clueless people answering phones seems like a good thing. Infact, on
this note, analysing vast amounts of data for trends and problems is exactly
the sort of thing Google is amazing at.. and most faults with internet service
can be identified, and remotely resolved, in this very manner.

~~~
TheCapn
Customer service, from the telecom standpoint, isn't so much about
troubleshooting as it is with customer relations and dealings.

\- Setting up billing and payments

\- Altering billing payments

\- Adjusting for outages

\- Scheduling repair vans

\- Scheduling installation

\- Answering clueless customer questions

Now I completely understand how Google may just defer much of those types of
issues to a central website but I know plenty of people that refuse to use a
service because of lacking telephone support. Google might be happy going that
way but I wouldn't pretend it is good CS.

~~~
officemonkey
This may be AT&T's core business, but I can tell you that they do not do it
expertly.

------
jdietrich
Here in the UK, we have a peculiar paradox regarding the rollout of fibre. We
have what amounts to a telecoms duopoly, split between the old telephone
monopoly (BT) and the sole national cable company (Virgin Media). BT cover
every home, but Virgin Media serve only the most populous areas. BT are
progressively upgrading their POTS network, while Virgin's network was FTTC
from the start.

BT only bother upgrading areas to fibre where they've got competition from
Virgin Media, so people tend to either have the choice between two 100mbps
fibre providers or none at all. The disparity in broadband speeds is growing
rapidly, because the areas not served by Virgin Media tend to be those
furthest from BT's exchanges and hence having the slowest ADSL speeds.

I'm not normally one to advocate government intervention, but the situation
seems absolutely absurd.

~~~
UnoriginalGuy
In the UK in particular both broadband AND cellular/mobile service should be
nationalised.

Both businesses and consumers NEED good quality infrastructure at an
affordable price. Essentially the country's economic growth directly depends
on it.

To accomplish that the government should control all fibre, all phone lines,
and all cell towers. It should then re-sell access to these things to
ISPs/telephone companies.

With this in place you might still buy your cable from Virgin and your mobile
phone service from Orange, but Virgin and Orange would be renting space on the
government's infrastructure to accomplish it.

Similar to the Network Rail model but less terrible.

~~~
ricw
That's a terrible idea. You probably can't remember how bad the telephone
services were when they were nationalised. Having to wait 6-12 months for a
line was the norm. Prices were high.

People seems to forget just how badly state run services typically are, even
compared to AT&T and the like..

~~~
anomie
My father was a surveyor in the city of London who worked on new office
construction. He used to tell me how back in the days of nationalised phone
service the first thing you did when you were building a new office building,
before you'd even laid the foundations, was to order the phone lines,
otherwise they wouldn't be ready in time for opening the building

~~~
glomph
Doesn't that makes sense anyway? It isn't like have to get your phone lines
after anything else.

~~~
talmand
No, it does not. In most cases it's not as if they had to lay down new copper
from a central office to the new building or would have to run copper
throughout the building. If the thing was built on top of existing
infrastructure then it "should" not be a big deal to hook the building into
said infrastructure. Of course, I say this without knowing the quality of the
infrastructure in question.

------
seldo
This is the really important takeaway of this piece:

"AT&T just admitted that they'll offer better service if there's real
competition, so how do we make sure there's real competition?"

AT&T and the others have been claiming for years that they are doing the best
they can and raking in huge profits; this kind of abrupt turnaround just shows
what a lie that was.

------
noonespecial
As I recall, the telcos already got their chance to hook everyone up with
fiber with super favorable terms from governments and huge tax breaks in the
90's. They made the promise, took the money and ran.

<http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060131/2021240_F.shtml>

Google's turn.

~~~
ditojim
that ain't right. let's ask for our money back..

------
jauer
TFA talks about favorable deals for telcos. Telcos have received one-time
incentives to do things that they may or may not have done, depending on who
you read. The recurring incentive is usually to keep phone service working in
rural areas.

What Google got (at least in KC) that AT&T wants is no franchies fee
(typically cable companies and fiber providers pay the town a percentage of
their revenue for the right run lines), no pole-attach fees, and cheap/easy
permitting.

The impressive thing that Google has accomplished is not delivering Gig to the
home. It is convincing cities, in a budget crisis economy, that the mere
presence of gig is important enough to not only give up a traditional revenue
stream (franchise fee) but also to give up cost recovery charges like pole-
attach and permit fees. Apparently they still have a 5% fee in Olathe, but I'd
bet they have other concessions that make up for it.

This: [http://techliberation.com/2012/08/07/what-google-fiber-
says-...](http://techliberation.com/2012/08/07/what-google-fiber-says-about-
tech-policy-fiber-rings-fit-deregulatory-hands/) and this:

~~~
sophacles
I don't know, I find it impressive that Google is doing this without begging
for money, then canceling the project after doing no work on it because of
hand wavy "expenses", like AT&T and their crowd have traditionally done with
putting fiber everywhere.

------
ck2
All marketing lies.

Make any company seeking such guarantees put up a $1 Billion bond that will be
forfeit if they don't complete in a few years and watch AT&T back down.

And for pete's sake stop giving tax deferments on the FRONT END. If a company
claims they are going to make jobs or supply a service do not give them the
tax break until that actually happens.

~~~
josh2600
All great ideas, except for lobbyists. In reality, it's probably not
reasonable to force someone to put up a bond to build a network. And a billion
dollars is probably an order of magnitude (or two) higher than what it'll cost
AT&T to completely build out Austin.

I believe google recently said they could build out most of the major
population centers in the US for 11 Billion, so that gives you some context
for a single city out of the top 100 metros.

~~~
ck2
Billion is just an example of something meaningful, and they'd get it back
upon completion. If not, the amount should be used to complete the network for
them and then the government would own the network or auction it off.

So the amount should be what it costs to build the network for the location.

------
mschuster91
Is it just European bias or is the US largely near a 3rd world country in
terms of internet broadband access?

~~~
robflynn
I don't think its bias. I cannot get DSL, CABLE, Fiber-anything... My choices
are: Dialup, Satellite, or wireless internet.

I can get 3G cell coverage -- sometimes.

My street does have cable television, they just refuse to service the area
with internet access. My country has an exclusivity agreement with this cable
provider, so no other providers can come into the area.

The sickening factor for me is the fact that I live practically on the county
line. I can SEE houses with time warner service from the end of my driveway.
They just can't go that extra half mile.

Crazy. So, basically, I end up paying $50/mo for 1down/.3 up. That's with lots
of packet loss, too.

~~~
kalleboo
> My county has an exclusivity agreement with this cable provider, so no other
> providers can come into the area

I see this over and over, and I don't understand WHY a local government would
ever do this. What do they get out of these exclusivity deals?

Meanwhile in my old town in Sweden, the city-owned power company built a
supplier-neutral fiber network to promote competition (and a price war).

~~~
jff
Grant County, in Washington state, did the same thing. The Public Utility
District (the power company) built a county-wide fiber network; local ISPs
have sprung up to sell access. My parents use a microwave link to the top of a
nearby mountain range, where a tower ties them into the fiber net. Speeds
aren't great, but when the other choices are satellite or dialup, it's pretty
good.

It probably helped that Grant County has several hydro dams in it and sells
power all over the place... I assume the PUD was pretty well-funded in this
effort.

------
jtchang
I am so glad Google is putting AT&T (and the other broadband providers) in the
hot seat. Sadly I don't think San Francisco will get Google Fiber anytime
soon. Why is it we don't even have Verizon FIOS?!

~~~
raldi
Because this is what happens when you try to do stuff like that in the Bay
Area:

[http://sfcitizen.com/blog/2011/11/15/no-att-lightspeed-
inter...](http://sfcitizen.com/blog/2011/11/15/no-att-lightspeed-internet-
service-anytime-soon-nimbys-win-against-city-a-stay-from-judge-harold-khan/)

~~~
josh2600
Sonic.net proposed gigabit in SF with 170 above ground repeaters compared to
AT&Ts 800+. That also was voted down.

It's not a sick joke, it's San Franciscan :/. I sometimes feel like we work in
a city that's all things at once: tech bastion, hipster haven, and a home to a
generation of hippies. There's a lot of culture and there's a part of it that
hates ugly things and a part of it that hates technology and every time
someone wants to build some cool tech like city wide wifi, this is the
inevitable result.

~~~
walshemj
Um you know that city wide wifi woudl require an insane amount of AP's and
backhaul - hence why wimax doesnt seem to be going any where.

~~~
josh2600
Insane is relative, backhaul is also relative.

I don't think WiMax was meant to solve the problems to which people have
applied it. If you look at WiMax actual range, it's quite good, but the
advertised range is at least double (hence all of the big ClearWire lawsuits).

I don't think setting up city wide wifi is unreasonable with present
technology. I think it's an entirely attainable goal, the things that hold it
back are bureaucracy and the same individuals who hold back things like
project lightspeed.

But my broad point in response to your comment is that the benefit of
saturating san francisco with AP's are manifold, whereas the costs and risks
are minimal.

~~~
walshemj
Sf has a population of over 6 and a half million and covers 600 square Km. I
woudl love to see your estimate for how much that woudl cost to build and
maintain.

~~~
josh2600
Less than 100M to implement and under 10M to maintain per year.

I definitely don't think it's expensive compared to the benefits. Personally,
if I'm pipe dreaming, I'd rather have ubiquitous 1gigabit fiber, which google
pegged at 11Billion for almost all of the US to be covered.

------
s3th
When I saw the original press release earlier today, I thought the company
name was a typo.

It's clear now that AT&T is making a political statement instead of announcing
a premeditated expansion plan. Regardless, this seems like one of the worst
possible ways to draw attention to purported "special incentives" that the
city of Austin is granting Google. There is a large chance that AT&T won't
come through on the plan at all--and when all this has blown over, AT&T is
much more likely to be remembered for reneging on their plan than for being a
proponent of fair regulatory laws.

------
derefr
> AT&T's expanded fiber plans in Austin anticipate it will be granted the same
> terms and conditions as Google on issues such as geographic scope of
> offerings, rights of way, permitting, state licenses and any investment
> incentives.

Sounds more like AT&T is expecting to make a deal with Google to resell
bandwidth off Google's own fiber after Google puts up all the initial expense
to lay it. That would indeed give them "exactly the same terms and conditions
as Google."

~~~
sliverstorm
Hey, if they want to do that and Google will co-operate, sounds fine & dandy
to me.

~~~
tomflack
If Google slyly becomes America's fibre wholesaler like that, I will tip my
hat to them.

------
cloverich
> Municipalities have been giving AT&T and other incumbents incredibly
> favorable deals for years, and AT&T has tended to return the favor by
> providing the bare minimum in quality of service to its broadband customers,
> while focusing most of its efforts on trying to block any hint of
> competition from showing up.

I"ve heard this a lot - I'd love to see some _objective_ background
information on this.

~~~
talmand
There are many news stories about such companies suing local municipalities to
prevent them from building their own network because the companies refuse to
service the area properly. Just pick whichever news source is the most
objective to you.

------
slacka
> "this press release confirms exactly the message that AT&T has been trying
> to deny for years: that when there's real competition, then AT&T will invest
> in making a better service."

In this cyber week in Congress, I wish our loyal representatives would pay
more attention to this instead of focusing on taking away our rights or
ramming another CISPA/SOPA down our throats.

------
mullingitover
This whole thing is really sad. Fiber is such a long-term investment in a
city's infrastructure that it should be a public utility. Let all the ISPs
compete to sell service over the public fiber infrastructure, don't let the
infrastucture rollout languish in the hands of people who are only looking for
short-term profits.

------
macspoofing
I love the disclaimer at the bottom:

"Information set forth in this press release contains financial estimates and
other forward-looking statements that are subject to risks and uncertainties,
and actual results might differ materially. "

------
jmharvey
It might worth it to AT&T to actually build a 1 gigabit network to dissuade
Google from encroaching on their territory in other cities. As the only
gigabit player in a location, Google can charge users much higher rates than
if they're one of two providers in the market. If AT&T sends the message that
they're going to be in a two-player market in any location where AT&T is the
incumbent broadband provider, Google might go after other markets, first.

Of course, that assumes that Google is rolling out fiber to the most
profitable cities first, which might not be a valid assumption.

------
rammark
For those fortunate Austinites who will face the difficult decision of
choosing between two gigabit fiber ISPs: AT&T is a founding member of the
Copyright Alert System scheme [1][2].

[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Alert_System#History>

[2] <http://www.copyrightinformation.org/about-cci/>

------
latimer
Even if they do end up following through on this, knowing AT&T it will be
subject to the same 150 GB/month cap they have on U-Verse.

~~~
jthol
Let me just download this stuff at 1Gbps... annnnnnd we're out of internet.

------
songzme
What's incredibly unfair is that Austin will now have 2 Gigabits of internet
while the rest of the world is bottlenecked at megabits.

------
tehwalrus
That's a poor poker face, AT&T.

------
ausjke
Once again it approves competition is good. ATT has the chance to do it years
ago, sigh.

------
cmccabe
Makes sense-- pretending to provide service is AT&T's core competency.

