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.
50gbps down and 10gbps up
LOL
Big lol I meant mbps
WiFi 7 really is the shit man
I mean, I can get symmetrical 25gbit/s for 777 bucks a year IN Switzerland. No limits, big ipv6 subnet, great provider. Init7.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
About your comment? I agree…no one cares about your comment.
You probably meant 50mbps down and 10mbps up
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.
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.
Municipal fibre is the only good ISP I’ve ever had. Communities around Colorado are rolling it out. I pay like $70/mo for 1gb/s, consistently get 300-600mb/s download speeds, haven’t had any downtime in a year, and zero piracy warnings using public trackers without a VPN.
ive been making jokes about ‘fiber to the desktop’ since 1996. funny we still are not quite there are we. so close!
in my experience, the faster the pipe, the less inspection. its a cost thing… when we were paying 500$/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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
OP is clearly a tier 2 ISP who is reselling bandwidth
