| 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. |
