how-to block ads
|
viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
 ·Qwest.net
| reply to SierraRob
Re: A whole institute huh?
said by SierraRob  :Sure, and then Verizon and Comcast will gleefully take the money, and drag their feet, and never actually build out to the underserved areas, and make all sorts of excuses why they can't, and things will stay just as they are. Public corporations run by Wall Street cannot be counted on to solve this problem. I would disagree with your first point. The State of Idaho contracted Qwest and a WISP (I can't remember who) to install Broadband in numerous cities/towns with no service. The deal was, the state picks up the tab for 1/2 the cost, and the carriers were under commercial contract to meet certain milestones/completion at certain time intervals. The WISP was contracted because Verizon would not agree to those terms in their old GTE/ConTel areas. Qwest, however, jumped all over that money, installed new fiber mux's and DSLAMS in numerous areas. Total time, about 18 months from conception to completion. Idaho is now pretty well wired, with every Qwest CO serving DSL. And Idaho is about as rural as it gets. Some DSLAMS were installed in towns no bigger than 500 people. So it can be done with the proper incentives. | |
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| Qwest has done a good job of deploying rural DSL here, too. We have both Verizon and Qwest territory here, and the boundary between Qwest and Verizon is very interesting: you see those mini-DSLAMs that Qwest uses, installed along the roads in their territory. On the Verizon side of the line (ex-GTE), as in Idaho, Verizon has told them to go pound sand.
In D.C., Verizon's lobbyists have been saying that they want USF-type money before deploying further, so subscribers in their lower-ROI rural areas are essentially being used as leverage to get more gov't $$$.
The biggest problem with the small-town areas in Massachusetts is that they have the misfortunre of being in Verizon terrority. | |
-
|
