how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| reply to BF69
Re: Significant implications Only problem is without landlines much of the rural areas will fall behind economically more and more. So when the big companies shuck off their landlines, we end up with bankrupt smaller carriers like Fairpoint and continue downhill as these rural area telecoms are broken down into smaller and smaller pieces. This could result in the "ghetto-i-sing" and impoverishment of large geographic areas where the idea of "telecommuting" was once thought of as a part of a "bright new future". When only the most wealthy, densely populated urban areas have access to the highest broadband speeds, businesses will quickly migrate out of these more rural areas. If this begins to happen, you can count on local and area governments entertaining and promoting the idea of regulating the broadband industry, as was the case when electrons were first being used to generate light a hundred plus years ago! | |
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | However, that begs the question: Should John pay more than is necessary, to subsidize Paul paying less than is necessary. There is no way around it, forcing a company like Verizon to serve all customers the same, and charging them all the same, regardless of how much benefit there is to the company in serving each customer, is nothing short of "redistribution of wealth". | |
 NOCManMacChatterPremium
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO | reply to Noreaster
Nobody is going to realistically wire rural areas for internet. The cheapest way is to do it wireless. That's why it was such a shame that wireless carriers started the 5g limits, because I know a lot of people who's internet service out in the sticks was through some sort of 3g connection.
--
Play a Death Knight?
www.theebonhold.com | | |
|
systems2000What? You Say It's Fixed. Hah
join:2001-11-29
Cyberspace | reply to bicker
Where have you been? Carriers already charge the same fee across their LL network. The only difference in rates is with State and local government taxes.
The Federal Government already has a tax in place that supports rural schools, hospitals, libraries, etc. It's been on LL bills for years. Without some government intervention, you couldn't drive 55 mph across this Country and the cities would be buried in human waste.
If the large carriers are allowed to "Cherry Pick' and not service surrounding rural areas, there will not be any service available to those who provide the needs of those in the cities. If you don't believe me, try to find a cow or an orange in D.C. that didn't come from the rural areas.
Why do I want to pay $.65 a min., when I get better service (unlimited calling - 24/7 LD) and rates through my LL? I don't drop LL connections, I don't have a need for batteies, and I don't have "Dead Zones."
--
Personal Theme Song:
RUSH - Mystic Rythms from Power Windows.
Rush Radio Website | |
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | Right here.
said by systems2000:The Federal Government already has a tax in place that supports rural schools, hospitals, libraries, etc. TAX. TAX. Not an unfunded mandate on the operations of a private enterprise. If you are supporting a tax, then say you're supporting a tax, and the taxpayers unions can get on your back, instead of capitalists like me.
said by systems2000:If the large carriers are allowed to "Cherry Pick' and not service surrounding rural areas, there will not be any service available to those who provide the needs of those in the cities. It isn't the carriers' fault that those areas aren't as profitable, and so there is no justification for punishing them. If you want to provide them special incentives to serve less profitable areas, to make those areas equally profitable, then do so. | |
| reply to bicker
Re: Isn't customer averaging the cell model? I might be missing a nuance you are trying to state, but aren't the wireless carriers and cable carriers doing the same thing? The wireless plans are all the same across the nation or within markets. Same with cable. Toss internet access into the mix. Anything sold to the mass market is essentially averaged.
Have you found a way to identify how your use tied to your bill in a manner that actually translated to your price discount against someone that used more than you on a similar pricing plan (cable, voice, internet)?
Cable, good luck telling em you only watch TV one hour a month let alone picking your channels.
Voice, closest to the ability to do so might be VOIP providers, and even then, the rate is averaged with increments on where calls terminate.
Internet..same thing.
Find me a company that does 100% contracts with their mass market customers outside of the flea market.
I don't get what your saying I guess. The market always redistributes wealth, even without regulation.
said by bicker:However, that begs the question: Should John pay more than is necessary, to subsidize Paul paying less than is necessary. There is no way around it, forcing a company like Verizon to serve all customers the same, and charging them all the same, regardless of how much benefit there is to the company in serving each customer, is nothing short of "redistribution of wealth". | |
| reply to NOCMan
Re: Significant implications said by NOCMan:Nobody is going to realistically wire rural areas for internet. The cheapest way is to do it wireless. That's why it was such a shame that wireless carriers started the 5g limits, because I know a lot of people who's internet service out in the sticks was through some sort of 3g connection. The wireless business still needs wires for any significant backhaul I think. If wireless were ready for prime time, why market femtocells? Makes more sense fore wireless to offload wireless traffic to the wired networks (telco or cable).
Nevertheless, many people are apparently wiring rural areas for internet.... do some digging, too lazy to post all of the links.
Greenfields are all generally FTTH, rural or urban
Overbuilds are generally FTTH (typically small independent telcos and/or munis).
Perhaps none are building for internet, but they are building for the broadband network. No one would admit a build out for the internet...the real money is in the next gen internet (a next gen cable model of sorts).
Maybe you meant to say Verizon or ATT won't be investing in rural areas? Qwest is predominantly rural and still barely invests in urban, but they are doing so slowly. People are still wowed by marketing terms like "download speeds" (no mention of actual throughput, latency, bursts, caps, etc...). That revolution will come within the next year or two I gather.
I agree that wireless is the future, but they can't do it without overbuilding the wires. Gonna take time...or they are going to need to telcos, which won't matter too much, since the wireless and wireline companies are generally the same.
But man.. "no one will realistically wire rural areas for internet"?
Yeesh, someone once said "no one will provide telephone service on the farm" and the gov had to come in and mandate the long distance company allow the local coops and businesses to interconnect to their "long distance" network. We are heading back to the 1930's in that respect. People created services where no one thought was profitable back then, I feel comfortable in stating that they can do it now (even without USF fees or subsidies).
How many areas (households) don't have choices of internet access (let's exclude satellite)? My guess is adding wireless would skew the conversation higher. | |
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | reply to xsiddalx
Re: Isn't customer averaging the cell model? I think the issue is the fact that different services we're talking about have vastly different load models. We're not comparing 10 hours of voice to 100 hours of voice. We're comparing 10 hours of voice to 100 hours of video. That's many orders of magnitude of a difference, rather than just one or two orders of magnitude. | |
| said by bicker:I think the issue is the fact that different services we're talking about have vastly different load models. We're not comparing 10 hours of voice to 100 hours of voice. We're comparing 10 hours of voice to 100 hours of video. That's many orders of magnitude of a difference, rather than just one or two orders of magnitude. Load models are the same, only different in determining the busy hour on the network topologies (which do differ).
Magnitudes matter not...a 1.54mbps DS1 to the internet once ran, and still does in some places, a few hundred, vs well, any 20 dollar internet connection (expensive for a 1.5 connect). We are dealing in packets vs circuits on the off-net side of any infrastructure provider's business.
10 hours of voice on dedicated connections are dirt cheap on packet/shared connections, then again, none of us are really interested in going back to party lines to save a buck, are we?
The network capacity in the provider world is built around peak, not around their highest priced customer's needs. If everyone is viewing 10 hours per internet connection or cell connection, how does it really differ from when everyone began using 240 long distance minutes per month on average?
You seem to be caught up on time...I guess I don't get it. I can easily "view", i.e. view while caching, 10 hours of video in significantly less time depending upon the encoding techniques.
Back to the original question/response....everything delivered to the mass market is typically "averaged". More expensive to try to maintain individual contracts with everyone than to just average it out. We, as people, do fit the averaging model rather nicely, generally.
The cellular ppl are all ex telco ppl, they've got the averaging covered quite well in their pricing models today, but the marketing ppl are still trying to figure out how to keep up the charade that is the current pricing...network engineering is still just network engineering, they are still designing around the busy hour. Any reason we should believe differently? | |
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | said by xsiddalx:Magnitudes matter not... Magnitudes do matter in this context. | |
|
