| Thanks for calling me ignorant, but that'd be nice if you could actually use examples relevant to the discussion.
There is currently no need, now or in the not too distant future, for more than one strand of fiber to each home. Even with 100 HDTV channels, there will be plently of bandwidth for everybody. I'm not very technical, but my understanding that you can gain more bandwidth from a strand by dicing the wavelength of each signal finer and finer as the need for bandwidth arises. It is not economical to have 4, 5 or 10 companies each burying their own fiber to get to your house.
To use a better example than your Corvette, what you're advocating would be the same as requiring each energy provider to build its own electrical line. Or to use your example, to ask each car manufacturer to build its own road.
The idea here is to separate the conduit from the services. Otherwise, what we create is a huge barrier to entry by requiring each service provider to also own the physical link to your house. If the bells don't have to share the fiber bandwidth, we are creating a monopoly for the next century.
Again, I'm not saying that the bells should lease the fiber below cost, let them earn a fair return on investment on their fiber, just like electric lines owners rent their lines. This is no different.
And finally, since the cable and phone companies are a de facto duopoly/monopoly in some areas, there is absolutely no reason why they should do as they please. As a consumer, I'll be footing their bill, so I want somebody to oversee them and open up the market as much as possible. |
Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| I didn't call you ignorant I mean the idea is ignorant.
Theres only so far you can go with current technology within costs on fiber. While it's true one single strand can be used to carry a massive amount of data.
Lets say one strand can carry a gbit a sec. Now chop that down. Lets say they all swap to voip. 10 k a sec both directions for decent quality. 10 people stress out a mbit link. Now you pile on multiple users. lets say your city has 10,000 people. That line becomes quickly saturated at 1 gig bit. Fast link saturation. The numbers are not exact though we just rounding off for the lack of physical set in stone numbers.
Now it cost verizon say 10 million to run that fiber ring. Each customer pays $10 a month to use. 10 months to make the money back If it was all profit. But it's not. So lets assume they make $1 per month per user profit. 10 k a month 120 k a year. It's awhile before this pays off.
Now with the others piggy backing for low cost. You talk about allowing them to access the network for .50 profit. Takes longer for it to pay off. Simple economics.
Now a company wants to compete here it's simple. They buy a built portion of the fiber. So verizon sells them say a chunk of bandwidth. say they sell them a 100 mbit trunk. If they provide it for cost they make nothing and every one has a choice same prices.
In a perfect world yeah sure let's do it. In the corporate world this is stupid to let others in on a profit chunk like this. It's stupid if you laid out the capital. BTW the others still have the copper network we currently use.
Now let's look at cable. They don't allow anyone on their copper and they aren't regulated as hard. Why ? The excuse is well they paid for the copper and did it themselves. Well this is the same boat verizon wants. Either the fcc regulates both the same or they deregulate. It's only fair. Cable provides data tv and phone. Verizon only does data and phone.
As far as the car analogy it's right on the money. Not each car manufacturer building their own road. I got no idea where you got that idea. If i bought a portion of land to drive my car (race track) then it's my choice who I allow on the course. You can't go whipping around my track for free. You pay a fee so I can recoup some money. If you crash into a wall on my course I need to pay to fix not you. Same here on fiber. Some thing goes wrong they pay to fix not the little guy.
Ohh and the electrical companies i don't know much about but I assume they own the lines in the cities much like cable companies. If im producing power im not gonna let you come in and say hey we are sharing the cables even though your producing the power im gonna sell it cheaper so I can get your customers. It's just not gonna happen. Welcome to capitalist america.
I agree with separating the service from the conduit, thats why I love muni projects. But since the cities are far and few between doing we need to have it done. And I don't expect Verizon to pour out money and let every one make money on their fiber until it's paid off and they have paid the rest of the bills. once it does hell open it up all they want.
Yeah you will be footing the bill so will I if I had their service. I don't have their service so I am not footing the bill. If they offered it here yes I would jump to it in a second. Even if the net speed was only 10 mbit each way.
Cable companies and teclo are not monopolies any more, or so says all the people who know the facts. Theres still cell phones, satellite tv, satellite phones , and satellite broadband. While it may not be what you want, thats no reason to say they are monopolies.
--
This package does not contain a winner... |
| reply to Zorglub
Well put answer.
On the electrical line example, at least out here in the West, multiple providers share the same electrical line. |
