brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | reply to elios
Re: Sounds like the same old crap. said by elios:the thing is once you run the fiber the costs for 1Gbps over 100Mbps are trivial
Who said anything about fibre? You don't need fibre to get 100Mbps - 200Mbps service to most people. Having fibre everywhere is the most ideal situation but it isn't going to happen. |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | reply to silbaco
Re: Pond scum subspecies said by silbaco:Google probably got a lot better rate for bandwidth from their upstream for Google Fiber.
They receive better rates because they're purchasing a large quantity of bandwidth. Other companies can do the same thing. Kansas City also isn't lacking in transit providers so there is competition. The markets that truly get raped typically only have one or two options. If companies are buying a lot of bandwidth they can backhaul it in from another major city. You tend to be screwed when you don't need a lot of it and there are very limited options. |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | reply to silbaco
said by silbaco:Other utilities should not be on poles either. It's just an attempt to save money that doesn't really work. If you don't own the poles, then you have to pay to use them. Every time a storm blows in you have to role trucks to fix the downed lines. Their customers have to suffer service outages. They should just do it right the first time and put the cables in the ground.
Are you going to provide the millions in additional capital it would take to do so? |
|
 elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO | reply to brad
Re: Sounds like the same old crap. to get 100/100 or 200/200 you bet your ass you need fiber
sure as hell not going to doing over the copper on the poles now ask AT&T how thats working out |
|
 keithpsPremium
join:2002-06-26
Soddy Daisy, TN | reply to NormanS
Re: Pond scum subspecies I pay only $69 for 100/100Mbps... |
|
| reply to brad
Google has the money.
The cost of putting lines in the ground often times pays for itself in the long run. But companies don't like to think long term. |
|
| reply to brad
They receive better rates because they are Google. Munis and cooperatives struggle greatly under the cost of upstream bandwidth. Sure buying more makes bandwidth less expensive, but in order to buy more you have to spend more. That isn't an option for a small company. Only large corporations or those fortunate enough to be in an area where upstream bandwidth is cheaper.
If my ISP tried to offer 1Gbps for $70 per month, they would lose money on the cost of bandwidth alone. |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | reply to elios
Re: Sounds like the same old crap. said by elios:to get 100/100 or 200/200 you bet your ass you need fiber
sure as hell not going to doing over the copper on the poles now ask AT&T how thats working out
wrong. |
|
|
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
1 edit | reply to silbaco
Re: Pond scum subspecies said by silbaco:They receive better rates because they are Google. Munis and cooperatives struggle greatly under the cost of upstream bandwidth. Sure buying more makes bandwidth less expensive, but in order to buy more you have to spend more. That isn't an option for a small company. Only large corporations or those fortunate enough to be in an area where upstream bandwidth is cheaper.
If my ISP tried to offer 1Gbps for $70 per month, they would lose money on the cost of bandwidth alone.
Your comment was commenting on cheaper bandwidth only. Google is offering the service cheaper because it is subsidized by ads! One has nothing to do with the other and they're two completely different issues. |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | reply to silbaco
said by silbaco:Google has the money.
The cost of putting lines in the ground often times pays for itself in the long run. But companies don't like to think long term.
Yes, they're rolling out an all fibre network but they're not thinking long term. |
|
Reviews:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to silbaco
Of course, backhoes, boring machines, large augers, etc., never damage cable. Water never gets into cables, etc. Sorry, but the expense and time to fix a damaged buried, or underground cable is most usually longer and more costly than a repair of an aerial cable due to the necessity to accurately locate the the damage, than have it dug up, and then repaired. Not to mention that damages to aerial cables are much easier to find.
Several years ago, the cost for burying cable here in the rock (rock starts about 6 inches to 1 foot below grade was in the neighborhood of $4 to $5 dollars per foot. |
|
 morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | reply to silbaco
Too bad the solution for downed lines is to abandon service, not fix the downed lines. We've all seen how electric companies never repair downed power lines. |
|
elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO | reply to brad
Re: Sounds like the same old crap. really theres a Nobel prize in it for you if you can figure out to put 200/200 down 100 year old telco copper |
|
elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO | reply to brad
Re: Pond scum subspecies if you think every other ISP in the world isnt selling user data your dead wrong |
|
| reply to elios
Re: Sounds like the same old crap. They already do 100/100 with VDSL. 200/200 has been done in the lab, although I don't know of any deployments yet. |
|
| reply to brad
Please provide a source that contradicts him beyond you claiming it is wrong.
And dont even mention VDSL2 or some other crap variance of DSL which is so distance limited to begin with you would have to run fiber quite deep just to offer it. |
|
| reply to brad
Re: Pond scum subspecies They are deploying fiber because it would be idiotic to deploy copper. |
|
| reply to brad
You misinterpreted my comment. I was talking about upstream bandwidth the entire time. |
|
| reply to elios
My ISP isn't. I would know about it if they did. |
|
elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO | reply to silbaco
Re: Sounds like the same old crap. in a LAB a lab is not the real world and even in the lab the distance was VERY short |
|
