172 points
*

Maybe they should be expanding their physical network first. I waited seven years after they supposedly came to my hometown, and their coverage area barely moved. Most of that is absolutely the fault of AT&T and Comcast stonewalling pole installations but they have the money to put up their own damn poles made of gold after that 77 billion profit report.

Now I moved elsewhere after covid and of course the only two real options still suck uncontrollably with no hope of any other big mover creating actual competition.

permalink
report
reply
65 points

i am also incredibly disappointed in their lack of achievement here. they have a metric shit-tonne of liquid cash, lawyers and tech out the butthole… but no… were back to ma’ bell still coagulating ala T2.

so much for being different

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

I suspect lawyers are stonewalling expansion for fear of making their monopoly cases worse

permalink
report
parent
reply
42 points
*

Google fiber has been supposed to be coming to the west side of Atlanta for like 10 plus years. Hasnt an expanded at all . Yet they still keep that message coming soon to your neighborhood up. And somehow where I am only one option available. Fucking shitty Comcast

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points

There’s vaults labeled “GFBR” 200 yards from my house on the east side, and it’s still “coming soon.” Meanwhile, AT&T is out here digging every 2 years.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

At&t offered my 5mbps lmao. Idk what they are digging for

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

Something something ISPs forcing municipalities to create service monopolies?

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Yep, somethingsomethingsomething regulatory capture.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Dude I feel bad you’re relying on Google of all people to save you 😬

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

you should feel bad for everyone in the u.s. that have to suffer the government(s) that allow this bullshit to even be a problem.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

You could really change US to North America here

permalink
report
parent
reply
53 points

I wouldn’t want to calculate what it’d cost to replace all my switches with 25G capable ones… then all the network cards… You’d have to have a really specific application to justify it.

permalink
report
reply
27 points

Just cost me 1K to replace 3 NICs, 1 router, and 2 switches to freaking 2.5Gb.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

I got one of the 2.5 x 8 + 10 switches StH reviewed for like $80, and x520 nics are $20. I’m happy with it for homelab stuff!

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Nice! I bought some used 10g UniFi stuff (dream machine and switch) for $500 and a pair of 10g NICs and a SFP+ cable for $80 on eBay. All in CAD. Already had some UniFi WAPs.

Homelabbing has been such a fun hobby, if a little expensive at times.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

10Gbps used enterprise equipment is pretty cheap on eBay. Biggest problem I’ve had is getting compatible SFP+ adapters for the NICs.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

Flexoptix reprogrammable tranceivers are a godsend for that. We use them almost exclusively at work and so do quite a few of ours customers (Universities and other places of higher education). But it’s probably hard to justify the cost of a reprogrammer box for a household. You can buy their transceivers pre-programmed though.

FScom has something similar, but I can’t vouch for those, never tried. Their patch cables are fine though.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

You won’t but I will

Switch: mikrotik CRS504-4XQ-IN ($799.99) Cabling: QSFP28 to 4 x 25G SFP28 DAC ($63.00 per cable) NICs: Intel XXV710 25GB ($349.0)

I don’t know how many machines you have so for two machine it’s cost you $1562.97 and maxing out the switch would cost you $6651.83 but do you really have sixteen machines that need or can even physically saturate a 25GB line?

I think it’s more reasonable to get something similar to ubiquiti’s USW-Pro-Aggregation and have three machines capable of the full speed and 28 machines capable of half rate speeds (at a much lower cost per machine)

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

What about a router?

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Both switches mentioned are L3 switches meaning they are a routers too.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

That’s the early adopter tax. Same as it ever was.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

Buy a media converter and do 25G -> 40G and run a 40GbE home net. Retired 40Gb gear is ludicrously cheap.

Edit. Or just stick a two port 100GbE card in your router, use an adapter to step one port down to 25Gb and run 40Gb off the other to the rest of the network.

permalink
report
parent
reply
48 points

I just want an internet provider that isn’t Spectrum or single-digit download speeds. Not having any real choice fucking sucks, especially since Spectrum is horrible.

Had AT&T fiber at my old place and god damn that shit went down one time for an hour the whole 3 and a half years I was there

permalink
report
reply
5 points

Have you looked at mobile broadband from T-Mobile or Verizon? I haven’t tried either personally but I know if I were in a broadband desert or an oligopoly market like most Americans I would definitely give it a try and see how performance is. Prices weren’t great when released, maybe $50+/mo. for home internet, you can get $ 30-40/mo around here from fixed line providers CenturyLink, FiOS/ziply, or comcrap; feel like the mobile Carriers really missed an opportunity at not pricing it cheaper to add a ton of subs or at least get people to try.

permalink
report
parent
reply
33 points
*

I was involved in one of these Google fiber roll outs several years ago, Google simply doesn’t know what the fuck they want or what they are doing as far as installing outside plant goes.

EDIT: To clarify, they simultaneously had no fucking clue what they were doing & also wanted to micromanage all of their contractors.

permalink
report
reply
18 points

Google really doesn’t know what it wants in general besides more profit. Like the killed by google is impressive.

permalink
report
parent
reply
32 points

If you’re struggling to think of a use-case, consider the internet-based services that are commonplace now that weren’t created until infrastructure advanced to the point they were possible, if not “obvious” in retrospect.

  • multimedia websites
  • real-time gaming
  • buffered audio – and later video – streaming
  • real-time video calling (now even wirelessly, like Star Trek!)
  • nearly every office worker suddenly working remotely at the same time

My personal hope is that abundant, bidirectional bandwidth and IPv6 adoption, along with cheap SBC appliances and free software like Nextcloud, will usher in an era where the average Joe can feel comfortable self-hosting their family’s digital content, knowing they can access it from anywhere in the world and that it’s safely backed up at each member’s home server.

permalink
report
reply
7 points

Video calls were all over 1950s futurism articles. These things do get anticipated far ahead of time.

4K Blu-ray discs have a maximum bitrate of 128 Mbps. Most streaming services compress more heavily than that; they’re closer to 30 to 50 Mbps. A 1Gbps feed can easily handle several people streaming 4K video on the same connection provided there’s some quality of service guarantees.

If other tech were there, we could likely stream a fully immersive live VR environment to nearly holodeck-level realism on 1Gbps.

IPv6 is the real blocker. As you say, self-hosting is what could really bring bandwidth usage up. I think some kind of distributed system (something like BitTorrent) is more likely than files hosted on one specific server, at least for publicly available files.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Also going big bandwidth ahead of the requirement curve means most people won’t use it to its full extent for a while. It’s much easier to implement and maintain such network than one trying to catch up with need.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I doubt a home server centered around software like nextcloud would ever become commonplace. I think a more probable solution involves integrating new use cases with devices people already have, or at least familiar form factors. For example, streaming from your smart TV device (chromecast, Roku, Apple TV, the actual TV itself) instead of from the cloud, or file sync using one of these devices as an always-on server. But, in both of these cases, there is in inherit benefit from using a centralized cloud operator. What are the odds that you have already downloaded the episode to stream to your TV box, but not your phone if that was where you intended to watch it anyways? And for generic storage, cloud providers replicate that data for you in various locations to ensure higher redundancy and availability than what could be guaranteed simply from a home server or similar device. I presume new use cases will need to be more creative.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Technology

!technology@lemmy.world

Create post

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


Community stats

  • 18K

    Monthly active users

  • 11K

    Posts

  • 518K

    Comments