What are your thoughts on fiber through the city?

After 16 years of living in my city, they will finally have city-wide fiber internet. I’m pretty stoked because the fastest internet I could possibly have is a WISP at 50gbps down and 10gbps up. Now I will finally have gigabit but it’s through the city, and I’m wondering if they will be more strict on illegal content download given a possible VPN leak. I know this is highly subjective but I want to understand all the possibilities what could happen.

Kazumara,

The best model in my opinion is if a municipality lays the fiber, then opens the infrastructure up for renting under FRAND terms to all ISPs. When I say infrastructure here, I mean both the fibers and the associated rack space on the other end of the fibers, including power and cooling.

Regarding the specific questions in your post body; I think you should be fine, because a smaller ISP is not as much of a target for intellectual property enforcement, and they probably won’t have a big compliance team like the big ISPs can afford.

ExLisper,

You poor Americans :( In Europe I can get 1Gbps for around 25 Euro/month from a local (they only operate in my town) ISP. Each town has one or two of them. On top of that you have the big ones like Orange. I could choose from probably 10 different providers. New buildings just come with fiber preinstalled. Just plug in the router and enjoy.

coldbrew,

Maybe specify the country. I lived in France and didn’t see any of that.

LarrytheLobster,

You definitely don’t live in Germany

D61,

50gbps down and 10gbps up

holy shitballs…

Greenbubbleb0y,

Holy forking shirtballs

WarmApplePieShrek,

You probably meant 50mbps down and 10mbps up

PM_Your_Nudes_Please,

For real. If OP is complaining about 50Gbps down, it’s because they’re a time traveler from 2050 and their storage drives start at 5 exabytes.

Kazumara, (edited )

My ISP offers 25 Gbit/s up and down for 64.75 CHF per month. Currently I’m just too cheap to get hardware for it, so I’m on the 1 Gbit/s plan for the same price.

So maybe a bit sooner than 2050.

PM_Your_Nudes_Please,

I never said it’s impossible. I said it’s odd that OP would be complaining about those speeds, as if 50Gbps is slow.

Kazumara,

I didn’t refute that it was impossible. I refuted that the time where 50 Gbit/s is slow is that far off if 25Gbit/s is possible today.

Evilsandwichman,

Well quite frankly with all the meat people consume, they’ll certainly need help passing it. I recommend state provided salads.

SaltySalamander,
@SaltySalamander@kbin.social avatar

50gbps down and 10gbps up

LOL

krolden,
@krolden@lemmy.ml avatar

WiFi 7 really is the shit man

rosa666parks,

Big lol I meant mbps

uberrice,

I mean, I can get symmetrical 25gbit/s for 777 bucks a year IN Switzerland. No limits, big ipv6 subnet, great provider. Init7.

clmbmb,

Should I tell you about Romania? Well, better not.

Valmond,

Or France :-D

How is the internet at my Romanian brothers and sisters homes nowadys?

clmbmb,

1Gbps, no rate limit to download/upload, 8 euro/month

Valmond,

That’s really really good.

I’m at 5Gb for 30€/month, but it’s 2x2.5Gb (I think upload is 1Gb) but I don’t have anything better than a 1Gb switch/network cards and so on anyways :-D

The box includes wifi6 though, 300Mb “practical” which is kind of having nothing to do with download speeds but quite comfy.

Cheers from France!

Valmond,

That’s really really good.

I’m at 5Gb for 30€/month, but it’s 2x2.5Gb (I think upload is 1Gb) but I don’t have anything better than a 1Gb switch/network cards and so on anyways :-D

The box includes wifi6 though, 300Mb “practical” which is kind of having nothing to do with download speeds but quite comfy.

Cheers from France!

happybadger,

Municipal fibre is the only good ISP I’ve ever had. Communities around Colorado are rolling it out. I pay like $70/mo for 1gb/s, consistently get 300-600mb/s download speeds, haven’t had any downtime in a year, and zero piracy warnings using public trackers without a VPN.

Morgikan,
@Morgikan@lemm.ee avatar

I spent many years working building and maintaining fiber networks, and I can unequivocally tell you that the answer to this is maybe. Normally you can treat city fiber just as any other ISP. A lot of them have different rules and different thresholds on what they allow and what they do not allow. Fiber networks are extremely expensive to build. So while you definitely need to protect the multi-million dollar investment you’ve made, depending on how you’ve built it it can be a little tricky to police what everyone is doing.

What’s interesting is just because you are not receiving notice of a DMCA infraction, that does not mean that your ISP has not received a notice. There is this idea that if you are not set up for it it is difficult to track out what account held what IP 30 days prior or 60 days prior. That is kind of a BS excuse, but I have been at companies that did not have logging because they did not want to have logging.

We did collect email notices and pass them around though weekly to see who could find the most absurd DMCA takedown. So I will say, if you were pirating some weird ass mommy fetish furry porn everyone in that call center knows it and is laughing about it.

radix,
@radix@lemm.ee avatar

I used to work with the networks of a university, sometimes dealing with DMCA notices. I’m honestly surprised I didn’t ever see anything super weird; it was only ever popular movies and TV shows.

What I’m trying to say is, I’m surprised the creators of the furry porn cared enough about their intellectual property to send out DMCA notices.

Tibert,

Am I mistaken, or did you want to say 50mbps and 10mbps? 50gbps seems way above what a wireless network can do.

For a vpn, your connection through wireless or fiber is exactly the same. The city only provides the fiber infrastructure. When you get Internet, it’s through a provider which will use their equipments and main network (they link their network to the city infrastructure, using their devices. At least, it’s how it works in France). Unless the provider is the city.

Tho I guess that providers do give data to the state so whatever the case, it would be the same thing.

Yoruio,

OP is clearly a tier 2 ISP who is reselling bandwidth

originalucifer,
@originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com avatar

ive been making jokes about 'fiber to the desktop' since 1996. funny we still are not quite there are we. so close!

in my experience, the faster the pipe, the less inspection. its a cost thing.. when we were paying 500$/moonth for a 64k pipe (yeah thats right), you bet your ass we're going to sit on people doin illegal/hogging shit. every bit was expensive. when we updated to 1.54mbps t1 things got slightly more lax, but still, usage mattered, hence DPI, packet shaping and the like. when broadband came people just stopped paying attention.

melmi,
@melmi@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

I’ve heard of people doing fiber to the desktop in their homelabs. Seems a little overkill, but it’s the cool factor that counts!

WarmApplePieShrek,

There’s no realistic scenario where the fiber for the street comes to your desktop. Some homelabs have fiber from the street to a switch/router, then more fiber from there to the desktop.

melmi, (edited )
@melmi@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

Connecting to a switch/router doesn’t change anything, that’s just how the Internet works. The fiber from the street is almost certainly connected to switches before it gets to your house as well.

If anything would break the “fiber to the desktop” meme, it’s the fact that most residential ISP ONTs I’m aware of do not support SFP, which means that you’d have to get copper out of the ONT, then convert it back into fiber. You’d have to get lucky with an ISP that has compatible options.

Kazumara, (edited )

My father just had the electricians pull in Cat 7 Ethernet at a friends place, but they used Cat 6 terminators. After that fiasco we were also discussing if it woulnd’t have been simpler to have them pull fiber and use media converters plus a switch with some SFP+ and SFP slots.

Illecors,

All the possibilities are up to your vpn.

Fiivemacs,

I am indifferent…while I agree that it should be, I think ISPs should be absorbed into the government and made as a service like power/water. I’m sick of the big 2 here raping everyone and acting like it’s our fault that we got raped.

I refuse to get fiber until resellers are allowed to use the infrastructure that the citizens already paid for but is held by a monopoly.

Morgikan,
@Morgikan@lemm.ee avatar

While I understand the sentiment, I kind of disagree with this. Cities implement fiber in different ways. Not all of them focus or care about residential service. In my city, they essentially set themselves up as a backhaul carrier. So when ISPs move into town rather than building out large infrastructure they connect into the city’s and pay the city for interconnect. That money then goes to city services which is why we have so many parks and different programs.

Usually resellers are allowed to use it. It might be prohibitively expensive for them, but there is availability. Again that depends on how the city has it set up, but typically you as a citizen are getting a return on that investment either way.

Imgonnatrythis,

So you get to pay for it with your taxes and then again when the ISPs hook up to it? Why not have the city be the isp? They would still get the money but there is more opportunity for regulation to prevent for profit price gouging and the money stays local. Only a portion of the money you give to isp goes back to the city now instead of all of it.

Morgikan,
@Morgikan@lemm.ee avatar

I think the issue with what you’re saying here is that you’re assuming an ISP is going to pay the same amount that residential customers pay. They will ultimately pay several times more than what would the same amount of residential customers of your own pay. There is a general rule that you do not build fiber where fiber already exists. It is just that expensive. So if a city’s fiber network is laid down first, ISPs typically will not cross those boundaries. They would rather pay for hand off as that is actually cheaper than building and maintaining the infrastructure.

One of the big differences between backhaul carriers and ISPs is the amount of actual personnel required as well. Backall carriers don’t need giant call centers filled with customer service reps and residential techs. They don’t need an army of field services to go out and install local services for residents.

Final point I can make to that is that regardless if it’s an ISP or it’s a city-based service, nobody builds fiber networks with residential in mind. When you build a fiber network you build it to businesses because the same service that you could sell to a residential customer you could sell to a business customer with a 10x multiplier on it. After you establish business services, you backfill residential. I worked accounts where one business client equaled 10,000 residential.

In the end, cities that establish themselves as backhaul carriers make more money for the city because they will cost less to build, less to maintain, and have the advantage of business billing.

SaltySalamander,
@SaltySalamander@kbin.social avatar

I refuse to get fiber until resellers are allowed to use the infrastructure that the citizens already paid for but is held by a monopoly

No one cares.

Baku,

🍬

Fiivemacs,

About your comment? I agree…no one cares about your comment.

weedwhacking,

Really harsh language there

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • uselessserver093
  • Food
  • aaaaaaacccccccce
  • [email protected]
  • test
  • CafeMeta
  • testmag
  • MUD
  • RhythmGameZone
  • RSS
  • dabs
  • Socialism
  • KbinCafe
  • TheResearchGuardian
  • oklahoma
  • feritale
  • SuperSentai
  • KamenRider
  • All magazines
    •