how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| reply to achuchma
Re: yea 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
 ·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 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. | |
|
