me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | reply to Romney2012
Re: Feds will deal to get the big ISPs on board What rules do you think will change?
As long as some net neutrality(ISPs can NOT make it so they have much better services than competition, ie an ISP that offers non-landline phone cannot make a VoIP not work very well as they[the ISP] can get the upper hand) and the it must be used on unserved first and then whatever is left must be used on under served areas, it could work. |
|
Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4
2 edits | said by me1212:What rules do you think will change? Anyone accepting the funds would need to apply the new net neutrality rules(stronger than the FCC principles) to their whole network. The major ISPs just won't do that - get a few measly 100's of millions and then apply the rules to tens of billions of existing assets. Unless those rules go, the big ISPs won't play along. Of course, the Congress and the FCC may MANDATE new net neutrality rules anyway. In that case, the big ISPs may decide to take money in the future if they have to take the medicine anyway.
Besides, from what I read, to provide broadband to all the unserved and underserved areas will take about $300 billion. The gov't is only, for now at least, kicking in $7.2 billion. More will come along later, but the gov't thinks(the fools) that they can prime the pump so to speak and that the big ISPs will fund the rest. But unserved and underserved areas don't provide a good ROI for private industry.
If the gov't is going to move real broadband in to the hinterlands, the poor stupid taxpayers are going to have to fund the whole $300 billion. |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | Is the 300B for wired or wireless? Does it include Amish country? Some areas may not be profitable enough for wired ISPs(well the big ones anyway) But may be enough for wireless, if the right guy comes along. |
|
|
|
Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4
1 edit | said by me1212:Is the 300B for wired or wireless? Does it include Amish country? Some areas may not be profitable enough for wired ISPs(well the big ones anyway) But may be enough for wireless, if the right guy comes along. The $300 billion would be for multiple methods of delivery - wired and wireless.
P.S.>> interesting side note. The Amish around Lancaster, PA do shun high technology for themselves. But they are smart business people and have signed very lucrative deals to put cell towers on their farms. The ones I have seen are disguised as grain silos to blend in with the scenery. |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | Ok, thanks for clearing that up.  |
|
| reply to Romney2012
said by Romney2012:said by me1212:What rules do you think will change? Anyone accepting the funds would need to apply the new net neutrality rules(stronger than the FCC principles) to their whole network. The major ISPs just won't do that - get a few measly 100's of millions and then apply the rules to tens of billions of existing assets. Unless those rules go, the big ISPs won't play along. Of course, the Congress and the FCC may MANDATE new net neutrality rules anyway. In that case, the big ISPs may decide to take money in the future if they have to take the medicine anyway. Besides, from what I read, to provide broadband to all the unserved and underserved areas will take about $300 billion. The gov't is only, for now at least, kicking in $7.2 billion. More will come along later, but the gov't thinks(the fools) that they can prime the pump so to speak and that the big ISPs will fund the rest. But unserved and underserved areas don't provide a good ROI for private industry. If the gov't is going to move real broadband in to the hinterlands, the poor stupid taxpayers are going to have to fund the whole $300 billion. Considering Verizon claims to have gotten FIOS fiber installs down to $900/home, and rural carriers are approaching $1500/home, I think $300 billion is a little on the high end. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| Also, considering you can get a decent wireless radio and antenna setup now for under $200 (Ubiquiti Bullet M) wireless distribution isn't so bad for areas that would cost $20k per customer to roll fiber to. At that point, it'd be unwise for government to spend that kind of money, and there isn't even enough ROI for telephone cooperatives, see
»www.businessweek.com/technology/···ge_2.htm |
|
| Except that in many areas no wireless is going to work well. If you have hills, trees, valleys, your cost to deliver wireless goes up substantially. Also, wireless does not support higher-end services that are needed by the businesses and institutions in many of these rural areas (unless you really start spending money), so building wireless infrastructure doesn't result in revenues for them to offset the costs to the residents and SOHOs. If you look at the long-term economic effects and the fact that the wireless will have to be replaced many times over the 50-100 year life of fiber to keep up with demand, it's a simple decision. Take the bite, go for the long-term and pay off the infrastructure over some 30 years. But, you have to include the larger institutional users (which gets right in the shorts of the telcos). Makes you want to just jump in and do this, doesn't it? |
|
