 tadmaz
join:2002-05-30
Mount Prospect, IL | yea If providers can get millions of subscribers to pay $50 for measley cable and dsl, they won't spend any more of their money to get people faster internet. It's quite simple actually, if you were in their shoes, you'd keep a product that millions would buy, right? |
|
 Morac
join:2001-08-30
Riverside, NJ
kudos:1
 ·Comcast
| Broadband should never have been defined as 256 kbps.
In all fairness though, The U.S. is much larger physically than Japan. To wire the entire country for fiber would be very very expensive.
That said, many cable companies and some phone companies have already run fiber nearly everywhere up to but not quite reaching homes. I guess they have no incentive to do so.
--
The Comcast Disney Avatar has been retired. |
|
|
|
| said by Morac:
In all fairness though, The U.S. is much larger physically than Japan. To wire the entire country for fiber would be very very expensive.
I think that is the point that many Americans tend to miss. In Japan, buildings in major cities are so stacked, that running fiber is easy.
Here, in the US, we tend to deal with larger lots, more room between buildings, etc...
And, as you said, a far greater geographical area.
--
Playing the Tuba isn't an art, it's an adventure! http://www.lakesidepride.org |
|
 coffaroMooniePremium
join:2003-07-05
Arlington, TX
kudos:3 | reply to Morac
I'm sick of hearing about the cost (US vs Japan). All cable has to do is a software upgrade (DOCSIS 1.0 or 1.1 to 2.0). Yes that will cost money. But it seams from what I read here at Broadband reports that we do have people willing to pay for it. Most company's paid a big chunk of it running all the fiber that still is dark (not being used). Fiber is much cheaper now because every one has it already so there is not much of a demand. Telcos have a little more work to do but it seams they are happy with what they have. They are still making money why upgrade. Cable is my only line for me and I live in a good size city. All the test markets I read about for faster internet is no where close to me. So if the test today, maybe for 6 mon. to see if it works it still will be about 2 years before most people can get it. That's slow progress. Just my 2 cents.... |
|
| reply to Morac
Why deploy a new technology when there is still an ample of $$ to be made out of DSL.... The Bell companies will not deploy new stuff until it is absolutely necessary...
Good example,
DSL only started to become widely available when the cable companies started taking their core business away..
--
Stunod |
|
 NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
 ·Site5.com
·Comcast
 ·Callcentric
| reply to achuchma
said by achuchma:
said by Morac:
In all fairness though, The U.S. is much larger physically than Japan. To wire the entire country for fiber would be very very expensive.
I think that is the point that many Americans tend to miss. In Japan, buildings in major cities are so stacked, that running fiber is easy.
Here, in the US, we tend to deal with larger lots, more room between buildings, etc...
And, as you said, a far greater geographical area.
Personally, I like that extra space. I don't know how many people here have been to Japan, but it is very crowded. You don't get hardly any space to yourself. I like my house, but I couldn't get a 3 bedroom house with a basement in Japan. Space is such a consideration. Which is why it is also cheaper to deploy broadband and fiber.
Speaking of deploying fiber, it is very expensive. Some of our company plants have fiber running about 500 feet to other sides of the plant. A 500 foot run of fiber alone is upwards of $2000! The fiber modules can run thousands as well. Even if you get cat5e tranceivers, those are not cheap either. I think our last ones costed us $750 for both ends. Fiber modules are about $750-$1000 for our switches and that is each module.
Not cheap that is for sure.
Maybe they should come up with a deal. If you have fiber running near your house, you can pay up to have it run to your house. Lets say you are 250 feet away. Cost to run the fiber will be $1000, plus you have to pay for the transceivers or fiber modules. Who here would plunk down $2000 up front for fiber to their home plus about $100 a month for service? I might be tempted...but I don't know many home users who would even consider that. Heck, we can't even get normal users to get off dialup when DSL alternatives exist for $27 in their area. :P
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal |
|
| said by Nightfall:
I don't know how many people here have been to Japan, but it is very crowded. You don't get hardly any space to yourself.
"Very crowded" is an understatement. Night clubs in Chicago get very crowded on Friday night...Japan is insanely crowded.
said by Nightfall:
Speaking of deploying fiber, it is very expensive. Some of our company plants have fiber running about 500 feet to other sides of the plant. A 500 foot run of fiber alone is upwards of $2000! The fiber modules can run thousands as well. Even if you get cat5e tranceivers, those are not cheap either. I think our last ones costed us $750 for both ends. Fiber modules are about $750-$1000 for our switches and that is each module.
Exactly....and that was just inside a building. Think of all the costs involved in an outside deployment. Add permits and levies to all that, you are looking at one hell of a price tag!
said by Nightfall:
Maybe they should come up with a deal. If you have fiber running near your house, you can pay up to have it run to your house. Lets say you are 250 feet away. Cost to run the fiber will be $1000, plus you have to pay for the transceivers or fiber modules. Who here would plunk down $2000 up front for fiber to their home plus about $100 a month for service? I might be tempted...but I don't know many home users who would even consider that. Heck, we can't even get normal users to get off dialup when DSL alternatives exist for $27 in their area. :P
You are probably one of the very few that would....
--
Playing the Tuba isn't an art, it's an adventure! http://www.lakesidepride.org |
|
| reply to achuchma
Geography has nothing to do with it. I live in Saskatchewan, Canada, population: =/- 1,000,000. Geographically, we are roughly twice the size of most states in the US. Why does this matter? The Telco here has at LEAST 1.5/384 ADSL to roughly %80 of the population, and has just announced that they will now be expanding to even more remote rural areas, via wireless broadband @ 2mbps/128kbps. Not blazing speeds, but because they use land-based towers,it is lower latency than satellite, and far better than dialup. If they can get service to that many people, in an area so geographically spread out that roughly %50 of our population is considered rural, and as a company still post excellent profits, why can't anybody else? |
|
NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI Reviews:
·Site5.com
·Comcast
·Callcentric
| said by JimmySask:
Geography has nothing to do with it. I live in Saskatchewan, Canada, population: =/- 1,000,000. Geographically, we are roughly twice the size of most states in the US. Why does this matter? The Telco here has at LEAST 1.5/384 ADSL to roughly %80 of the population, and has just announced that they will now be expanding to even more remote rural areas, via wireless broadband @ 2mbps/128kbps. Not blazing speeds, but because they use land-based towers,it is lower latency than satellite, and far better than dialup. If they can get service to that many people, in an area so geographically spread out that roughly %50 of our population is considered rural, and as a company still post excellent profits, why can't anybody else?
First, the government has to make a dedication to rolling this broadband out. Either that or a cable/dsl company has to foot the bill for it. That is part of the problem as I see it. I know a lot of areas that don't even have cable TV much the less broadband due to the fact it is so rural. Why should DSL/cable providers run services all the way out there if they only get one customer or two? It makes no sense to them.
Really, it all comes down to money.
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal |
|
| Exactly! The company I mentioned has been expanding to most communities with population of X, obviously the most profitable ones first. I think the latest bit in the paper said that any community of 150 ppl or more has DSL now. After that, most things that are smaller are a money losing proposition. Hence the wireless, Each tower with a range off approx 30km, LOS. |
|
| reply to Nightfall
Agreed I think there are many people out there that would be willing to pay the extra money to have fiber to there house. I certainly would. |
|
 technickPremium
join:2000-12-16
Wheat Ridge, CO
kudos:1 | reply to Nightfall
said by Nightfall:
Maybe they should come up with a deal. If you have fiber running near your house, you can pay up to have it run to your house. Lets say you are 250 feet away. Cost to run the fiber will be $1000, plus you have to pay for the transceivers or fiber modules. Who here would plunk down $2000 up front for fiber to their home plus about $100 a month for service? I might be tempted...but I don't know many home users who would even consider that. Heck, we can't even get normal users to get off dialup when DSL alternatives exist for $27 in their area. :P
With that line of thought if I paid x amount to have fiber, than when I moved to a new location I can take what I paid for with me? Also will I get a discount from the provider I go with since I purchase additional equipment?
--
"Our greatest glory consists not in never falling, but in rising everytime we fall." - Confucius - - - - - - - - - - - Streamfire.net- - AIM - CoNFuCiUsNiCk |
|
| reply to achuchma
I'm curious.
How do many of you square the claims that government shouldn't be involved in broadband build out and that we should let the market work, with your incessant claims that it is not economically feasible to build out in many areas of the country because population density isn't high enough, which is another way of saying that the market is not going to deal with this(even though costs have been dropping over the last decade, they never seem to drop enough to make the business case for build out).
Is the market going to be able to provide the infrastructure necessary for 21st century economic activity or is it not?
Should we simply say that the have nots are shit out of luck and tolerate the development of the digital divide? |
|
NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI Reviews:
·Site5.com
·Comcast
·Callcentric
| reply to technick
said by technick:
said by Nightfall:
Maybe they should come up with a deal. If you have fiber running near your house, you can pay up to have it run to your house. Lets say you are 250 feet away. Cost to run the fiber will be $1000, plus you have to pay for the transceivers or fiber modules. Who here would plunk down $2000 up front for fiber to their home plus about $100 a month for service? I might be tempted...but I don't know many home users who would even consider that. Heck, we can't even get normal users to get off dialup when DSL alternatives exist for $27 in their area. :P
With that line of thought if I paid x amount to have fiber, than when I moved to a new location I can take what I paid for with me? Also will I get a discount from the provider I go with since I purchase additional equipment?
Well, that is like my company thinking they could take the fiber with them when they leave. I would have to say...why not? You paid for it. I can't see us leaving behind 500 feet of fiber if we left one of our plants. That is expensive wiring. As for the discount, I don't see any reason why not.
All this is just a big "what if" scenario obviously. The main point I was trying to make is why you won't see FTTH anytime in the near future. It isn't like it runs through wiring that is already in the home. You are looking at an INCREDIBLE expense of money and time to run the fiber to your home. Especially if you have lit fiber already within 400 feet of your home. You think 400 feet is very close, but the wiring and equipment to do the job costs thousands of dollars.
That along with the fact that people are so unwiling to pay for high end broadband for a premium price. Heck, we can't even get people to pay $45 a month without complaining about something. Then we have the users on dialup AOL with a extra phone line when they have DSL alternatives for $25-$30 a month in their area. 
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal |
|
| reply to asdfdfdf
said by asdfdfdf:
How do many of you square the claims that government shouldn't be involved in broadband build out and that we should let the market work, with your incessant claims that it is not economically feasible to build out in many areas of the country because population density isn't high enough, which is another way of saying that the market is not going to deal with this(even though costs have been dropping over the last decade, they never seem to drop enough to make the business case for build out).
Is the market going to be able to provide the infrastructure necessary for 21st century economic activity or is it not?
Should we simply say that the have nots are shit out of luck and tolerate the development of the digital divide?
The problem is capitol. Yes, Japan may be leaps ahead of the US, but people do not live on 1/4 or great acre lots in Japan's cities.
Even in the most crowded US cities, there is still plenty of space to cover. And that is the issue.
While fiber and equipment may have gotten cheaper, it still costs money, a lot of it...
Do you realize that there are still parts of this country that do not have POTS service? While high speed internet may be nice, it is not something that we need to go into serious debt about, not to mention the costs involved.
Remember that Japan is only the size of one of our largest States of the Union. The costs involved in deployment would very easily push your monthly rate for such a service in the upper $100 - $200 range.
Is this something you are willing to pay? Is this something Joe User is willing to pay?
More than likely not. Hence, bad investment.
Companies are in business to make money. If a business venture does not yield a good return, it is a failure.
Businesses try to avoid ventures that cost tons of money and has no return.
I also feel the same about using my tax dollars to build such a network. There are plenty of other things my tax dollars need to be spent on before everyone and their brother gets a 100MBPS fiber line to their home.
--
Playing the Tuba isn't an art, it's an adventure! http://www.lakesidepride.org |
|
| reply to JimmySask
said by JimmySask:
Geography has nothing to do with it. I live in Saskatchewan, Canada, population: =/- 1,000,000. Geographically, we are roughly twice the size of most states in the US. Why does this matter? The Telco here has at LEAST 1.5/384 ADSL to roughly %80 of the population, and has just announced that they will now be expanding to even more remote rural areas, via wireless broadband @ 2mbps/128kbps. Not blazing speeds, but because they use land-based towers,it is lower latency than satellite, and far better than dialup. If they can get service to that many people, in an area so geographically spread out that roughly %50 of our population is considered rural, and as a company still post excellent profits, why can't anybody else?
Rolling out DSL and rolling out fiber are two completely different things.
For DSL, the only equipment upgrades required are DSLAMS in the CO, and remote DSLAMS at remote areas.
Fiber, however, requires digging up the ground to lay brand new cable. All the new equipment required for that line (no, fiber is not one long cable from point A to point B - Fiber uses tons of equipment), upgrading the CO to support a fiber connection, and so on.
With DSL, the lines are already there...
Here's a thought for you...It costs a Customer roughly $75,000 to have a fiber line laid between our POP and their office that is only 5 miles away. That is the very reason why FTTH is far off in this country.
Geography has everything to do with it.
--
Playing the Tuba isn't an art, it's an adventure! http://www.lakesidepride.org |
|
| reply to JimmySask
said by JimmySask:
Geography has nothing to do with it. I live in Saskatchewan, Canada, population: =/- 1,000,000. Geographically, we are roughly twice the size of most states in the US. Why does this matter? The Telco here has at LEAST 1.5/384 ADSL to roughly %80 of the population, and has just announced that they will now be expanding to even more remote rural areas, via wireless broadband @ 2mbps/128kbps. If they can get service to that many people, in an area so geographically spread out that roughly %50 of our population is considered rural, and as a company still post excellent profits, why can't anybody else?
Do they face a lot of wireline competition up there? Do they face a lot of competition from cable internet?
Its easy to do these things as a monopoly provider, but you are putting all of your eggs in one basket. Look at the mess much of the rest of the world is in with their choice of GSM. I'd rather have more options and get to the better solution in the end. |
|
BeeperPart Of The Problem
join:2001-09-27
Dayton, OH | reply to asdfdfdf
said by asdfdfdf:
Should we simply say that the have nots are out of luck and tolerate the development of the digital divide?
Yes.
--
Guaranteed Fear and Loathing. Abandon all hope. Prepare for the Weirdness. Get familiar with Cannibalism. |
|
 DaDogsSemper VigilantisPremium
join:2004-02-28
Deltaville, VA | reply to asdfdfdf
said by asdfdfdf:
Is the market going to be able to provide the infrastructure necessary for 21st century economic activity or is it not?
Should we simply say that the have nots are shit out of luck and tolerate the development of the digital divide?
Cogent argument, well said.
Wireless Broadband.... operating in the 700 MHz portion of the spectrum... and mesh networks.
Yes we are going to be able to provide the infrastructure.
If it is not cost effective to lay the wires, then don't.
The system is already heterogenious. That is not going to change. What we will be doing is using the most appropriate technology at the most appropriate place.
--
»members.ozemail.com.au/~lbrash/msjokes/ |
|
