how-to block ads
|
Comments on news posted 2001-02-24 04:11:03: The map to the left (click it for a bigger size) has a green dot for where we think there is a DSL enabled CO, and a red dot for a CO without DSL capability..
Telephone companies and CLECs sure have some work ahead of them.. ..
| |
 
evannguyen
join:2001-01-18
Irvine, CA | Go California! Looks like California is pretty well covered. The red dots shown are pretty much mountains and farm land. Bay area, greater L.A. and south counties (San Diego) are mostly green. Then again, I could be wrong. | |
| panzer4
join:2000-10-29
Bellevue, WA
|  Is it possible...
BTW, I love the CO map. I must have stared at it for ten minutes. | |
| | 
justin
Australian
join:1999-05-28
Brooklyn, NY | Re: Is it possible... Stay tuned, we have the ability to create drill down maps now to county and zip level... and opening availability to user feedback is a logical consequence of providing that. | |
| | 
boredlawstudent
join:2001-01-05
Los Angeles, CA
| Map is misleading The map needs to be adjusted by population density. Who cares if cows in South Dakota have a DSL enabled CO, it not the area a CO serves, but how many people a CO serves.
--
The Home Fibre Channel Project: »fibrechannel.freeservers.com
Avatar picture is a set of Juniper core internet routers: »www.juniper.net | |
| 
lml2000
Whazzup
join:2000-08-17
Los Angeles, CA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
|  Some Interpretation
More importantly, I think before one jumps to immediate conclusions, what would be real interesting to see is these green/red dots laid over a similar map that is solid, but varying in color, that indicates of relative concentrations of population, residential and commercial. I cite commercial because commercial, more than residential population drives installation of DSLAMs in a CO.
I would also question how current this map is. Telcos are outfitting COs every week with DSL equipment. In California, PacBell has a clear priority of which COs were to be outfitted with DSL equipment before others. Obviously, COs serving more rural populations were placed at the bottom of the list, and this is understandable. Nevertheless, the installations in PB COs continues in the backdrop behind the much more focused-upon Project Pronto.
It all boils down to concentrations of population. In larger populations centers, you have higher concentrations of people who don't have DSL because they're more than 18 K-ft out along the loop, than you have in small populations centers such as El Central, where some in that community can access DSL if they live close enough to the CO. But it is the more remote locations, service by more remote COs, where population concentration really does not exist, that IMHO distort the immediate conclusions presented by the map.
You look at NM, UT, WY, ID, WY and you certainly don't see much green. Well, outside of the larger cities in these states, where is there any significant concentration of population to warrant immediate deployment of DSLAMs in the switching office. These demographics are why many believed that USW would be the last of the RBOCs to find a partner. Surprising, Qwest took the nut.
IMHO, most of the areas will be prime markets for fixed wireless providers. It just doesn't make sense to invest is new technology is many of these small remote COs just to service a potential market of no more than 100 subscribers, where penetration might not exceed 50 percent (50 subs). The economics of fixed wireless lends itself to less dense markets, but obviously these providers are focused in the larger metropolitan markets right now. In later years they will turn to under-served markets.
--
Regards,
lml | |
| |
justin
Australian
join:1999-05-28
Brooklyn, NY
Host:
IPv6
Business Connectiv..
Home/Office setup ..
Console/Handheld g..
Console Tech
| Re: Some Interpretation Good summary.
The data is three months old, by the way, although we can and should do a more uptodate one. Certain telcos (verizon for example) are also not interested in providing dslreports.com with availability, so we rely on what few partner ISPs they do have that are brave enough to input availability correctly.
Perhaps a more public and permanent availability map might shame some of these guys into getting off their butts and providing easier availability information to the public, rather than, like SBC, requiring people enter their telephone account number over a 128bit encrypted browser session, before being told whether or not they can get DSL.
How else can people plan where (not) to move to if availability is such a closely guarded secret?
One of the big shames of the DSL industry is they have completely failed to promote their own technology by providing a free public and correct combined availability resource.. instead they regard this information rather like microsoft regards its operating system source code. | |
| | |
lml2000
Whazzup
join:2000-08-17
Los Angeles, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
|  Re: Some Interpretation
I would also raise the same criticisms of the cable industry as they are no different, and if different, much less forthcoming than the telcos. I have a much more difficult time obtaining reliable information from my MSO: (1) what kind of upgrade my neighborhood will receive; (2) when; (3) where's the fiber; (4) how many subs will be on the node; etc.
I can't comment on VZ as I live in So. Calif., but I will agree that SBC seems to have a much better handle on their DSL effort than VZ. Here in CA, I just speculated in 1998-99 that GTE sat on its hands not really knowing what they were gonna do with DSL until the merger with BEL rec'd FTC, FCC approval and the merger finally closed, allowing new management to take over. PB, as you know, tried to push DSL technology here in CA in the early 90s, but the entire program just collapsed. So, in some respects, PB was able to hit the ground running in 1997-98 when it came to what they had to accomplish, administratively, with their DSL rollout. I dunno what experience, if any, the folks at GTE or BEL had in DSL. My guess is little, next to none.
--
Regards,
lml | |
| 
Hayward
K A R - 1 2 0 C
Premium
join:2000-07-13
Key West, FL
| Hmmm where's that little green dot in Key West? Just kidding...(though it is missing)
Any way what would make this map much more relevant would be if it were overlaid with population density, as to potential service available...
DSL and Cables is just not going to be economical in the middle of a 50 sq mile plains wheat field.
Wireless and satellite is going to be the viable things there until the entire country is wired fiber and we are on to a whole other technology.
--
-Hayward
»haywardm.com (Hayward's Key West) | |
| | Anon | Goes to show you how small DSL is.............. DSL technology has a ways to go before it ever becomes main stream, but then again by the time it hits main stream FTTC/FTTH will be similar to the map. Will DSL ever become as main stream as dialup? I doubt it honestly, but who knows. Most people in this country don't even know what DSL is.
The only thing I'm surprised about is California. Not really surprised but a little taken back by the small amount of DSL ready (enabled) COs that are established throughout the state.
--
"Internet Security. Now that's an oxymoron." | |
| JBSchmidt
join:2001-02-09
Shreveport, LA
| DSL in N. Louisiana I also question the accuracy of this map - what is it being based on ? user reports ? reports from providers ? There are no green dots at all north of the Baton Rouge, Louisiana, line, yet, I am all the way in the NW section of the state (Shreveport) with DSL access.... just wondering.. | |
| 
wssddc
@broadband.u
| Compare to North America at night image It's not too surprising that this picture looks much like an image of North America at night that was assembled from satellite photos. See for example:
»www.novaspace.com/POSTERS/PHOTO/···ite.html
(Sorry, this link points to someone selling a poster, but it's still a nice image.) | |
| 2Drnk2Fsh$
join:2001-01-29
Bryant, AR
| Bad news for those in the black. This is what deregulation of the communication industry has brought about:
Companies only want the "Gravy Train". Deregulation only makes it easier for corporate greed to thrive.
I can't blame these companies. Would you rather invest money in a Central Office in Houston,Texas and pick up 20,000 customers or go to Stamps, AR and invest money to pick up 13 customers.
In the past, the Telcos were forced to provide "universal" service. That is, service to everyone in the area they have elected to serve, no matter how rural.
The fact is, it cost much more to provide and maintain rural facilities. The telcoes would use rates charged to business and metropolitan customers to help subsidize rural service and keep rural services affordable. Now they are losing alot of the lower overhead, metropolitan service to the CLEC, yet are still expected to maintain affordable rural service and continue to spend money upgrading these facilities.
I see lots of ILEC bashing that goes on. I see the CLEC being treated as if it had been mistreated by the ILEC. You can bet one thing, the CLEC is not going to build a network in Podunk, TX. Instead, the CLEC just sits back and waits on the ILEC to upgrade a Central Office exchange, and then jumps in and wants to start offering DSL accross the upgraded ILEC facilities.
I don't know what the incentives are for an ILEC to upgrade it's exsisting Outside Plant. ILEC's are told how much they can charge, they are told they must allow CLEC's to use part of their facilities and central office space, and how much they can charge the CLEC. The CLEC is allowed to charge the same (or even higher, i guess)rates for DSL as the ILEC.
So explain to me how a company, not required to provide service to the higher overhead, rural customers, is allowed to charge the same rates as the ILEC, while using the ILEC facilities. It looks like it is being left totally up to the ILEC to extend the DSL coverage areas, yet they get no more profits than the CLEC.
Sounds like a raw deal to me, which is bad for the areas "in the dark" on the map.
While dergulation may stimulate competition within the metropitan areas and drive prices there down, everyone else is SOL. | |
| | | Anon |  northern nevada not represented
| |
|
slkdjflsdkjf
@arn.net | LOOk Yes Perryton, Texas is now a DSL community | |
| | | |
|
Interesting...
