Boxed out - Page 3

Fiber-optic proponents think beyond AT&T's proposed network upgrades

SF needs to plan its communications infrastructure beyond the hundreds of unsightly metal boxes that AT&T wants to install.

Navin, Mendendez, and several others have talked up the idea of micro-trenching a small area in the Mission District to bring fiber-optic, high-speed Internet to an entire neighborhood. Yet their early conversations with the city's Department of Public Works suggest that it may be a slow process. "They were like, 'What is this?'" Menendez recounted. "There's no established permitting process."

Meanwhile, Board of Supervisors President David Chiu recently asked DTIS to examine the possibility of leasing excess capacity on city-owned dark-fiber infrastructure, which is currently in place but not being used. This could boost bandwidth for entities such as nonprofits, health care facilities, biotech companies, digital media companies, or universities, Chiu said, while bolstering city coffers. "There are many places in town that need a lot more bandwidth, and this is an easy way to provide it," he said.

Sniezko noted that other cities have created open-access networks to deploy fiber. "This is really effective because it's a lot like a public utility," she explained. "The city or someone fills a pipe, and then anyone who wants to run information or service on that pipe can do so. They pay a leasing fee. This has worked in many places in Europe, and they actually do it in Utah. In many cases, it's really cool — because it's publicly owned and it's neutral. There's no prioritizing traffic for one thing over another, or limitation on who's allowed to offer service on the network. It ... creates some good public infrastructure, and also allows for competition, and it sort of revives the local ISP. Chiu's proposal is a little bit in that vein, it sounds like. But he hasn't released a lot of details on it yet, so we're still looking."

Visit for more info



Yay for Rudy Rucker. Its nice to see science being brought to an argument at city hall. Its probably over the heads of most of the board, but everything they say is correct.

We are behind and AT&T will use this upgrade and the required upgrade in ten years to charge consumers more for less. Its a great business practice and a great way to make lots of money on the backs of saps... and its all enabled by elected officials that AT&T is undoubtedly financially contributing to their campaigns.

5 years ago, I could get 30Mbps in Paris for 12euro a month.

Posted by Guest on May. 12, 2011 @ 10:54 am

We've been telling SF to get behind its own fiber since 2007 - deaf ears.
See for an independent internet service provider's response to the FCC's gutting of the unbundling rules that allowed small ISPs to compete on the market.

If you wait for AT&T to give you fiber or anything faster than 50 megabits, you'll probably die waiting. Maybe the activists in SF can finally get some traction. But, my bet is on continued industry stonewall coupled with too many libertarians opposed to letting people try Socialism "just because they want to", and I predict the move in SF for community services (anything like citywide) will founder.

Take a look at - that is the business you'd like to deal with: they sell the services that you want; they try to make it affordable; and their ultimate goal, oddly enough for a for-profit corporation, is to convince people that they do in fact dearly want to own and control their own GIGABIT services over FIBER - by providing immediate demonstrations of such networks in operation.

Get Rudy Rucker together with those guys and see what happens.

Posted by Community Fiber on May. 13, 2011 @ 12:02 am

Fiber optic cable?

Only way to get that is to get a Mayor who won't bend over and tear his tush in half spreading for AT&T. Right now all we have is John Avalos. I'm poor and I give $20 a month to campaigns during season and thus far I've given him $30. You should all do the same and fill out the card for matching funds for him.

Avalos for Mayor!

Adachi for Mayor!!

Gonzalez for Mayor!!

Daly's Dive noon to 3 pm for Bulldog Salon today.

All you doubters, the Giants are back in 1st place!!

Giants 11:35am today


Posted by Guest h. brown on May. 13, 2011 @ 9:48 am

Just because AT&T says they are going to put in faster service doesn't mean we'll get it. Everything comes at a price. All of these companies throttle the service and now AT&T has placed a data cap on its service. This is ridiculous. We need to have an open public option. The everlasting battle between long term cost vs short term gain. *sigh* -_-

Posted by hP on May. 16, 2011 @ 11:15 pm

What is really "evil" about this deployment is that the CLEC are
literally being "clipped" out of the loop here. When the phone company was de-regulated, competitive local exchange carriers (CLEC) can rent the copper that goes from the central office (CO) to the street address. A CLEC like, RawBandwidth, etc. can put in gear at the CO and provide a competitive broadband services.

With the U-Verse roll-out, ATT will be bringing in fiber to the neighborhood and cutting the copper that goes back to the CO and terminating it on the U-Verse gear. In effect prohibiting the CLECs from competing with ATT.

This is what you should be screaming about.

Tim Pozar
Community Broadband Activist

Posted by Guest on May. 17, 2011 @ 8:36 am