 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to KrK
Re: 768kbps downstream and 200kbps upstream? said by KrK:said by Uncle Paul:That's not my point. If we're going to throw $7.62 BILLION at something, it should offer something better than 768/200. That's the great thing about over Government--- it's the best money can buy. $7.62 billion is nothing folks. Verizon's rollout is running upwards of $28 billion to cover a select few densely populated state with a 65% or so coverage goal. This is rural American we're talking about with vast areas where the population density is as low as 1 person per square mile.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USA-2···sity.gif |
|
 tschmidtPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:5
 ·Fairpoint Commun..
 ·Hollis Hosting
| said by Matt: $7.62 billion is nothing folks. Verizon's rollout is running upwards of $28 billion to cover a select few densely populated state with a 65% or so coverage goal. To put these numbers into perspective there are about 110 million households in the US. Cost to deploy fiber to the premise (FTTP) is about $2000 per household or about $225 billion to provide fiber to everyone.
The goal of the stimulus is to invest in under-served areas and quickly deliver some form of broadband. As others have posted 768 kbps is significantly better then dialup.
/tom |
|
| Where'd you get $2000 per household??? Verizon's cost to deliver FTTH has thus far dropped to significantly below $1000 per household. I guess if you're factoring in the higher cost of delivering to rural areas that would make sense. |
|
tschmidtPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:5 Reviews:
·Fairpoint Commun..
·Hollis Hosting
| said by sonicmerlin: Verizon's cost to deliver FTTH has thus far dropped to significantly below $1000 per household. Cost to pass + cost to connect is about $1500. Since rural areas are more costly, fewer homes per mile, I arbitrarily increased it to $2000 as an national average.
/tom |
|
|
|
