 RobIn Deo speramus, God Bless the USAPremium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2 | No excuse.. There's simply no excuse why every home in the U.S. cannot subscribe to DSL. If they have access to a phone line, they should have access to DSL. The same goes with cable TV. There's just no valid excuse.
This is why I don't support giving any funding to Comcast, AT&T, Verizon or any of the big companies to expand their network. IMO, they haven't made the effort, and therefore don't deserve any help.
--
CheckSite.us | YourIP.us | Reverseip.us |
|
|
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
1 edit | While I agree that all homes in the US should have(decent, 5Mbps+) internet access, there is a valid reason that it cannot be dsl in many areas. DSL can only be so far from a remote terminal (2000ft?) and in many areas in the US the homes are further apart than that. It also would not be cost effective to put in a DSL RT for every household. The other reason is that in many of these areas there simply are not enough extra lines available to supply everyone with a DSL line. Which means you have to bury new stuff. Why install old technology when you can install fiber for essentially the same cost? |
|
Reviews:
 ·Comcast
 ·AT&T Southeast
| reply to Rob
said by Rob:There's simply no excuse why every home in the U.S. cannot subscribe to DSL. If they have access to a phone line, they should have access to DSL. The same goes with cable TV. There's just no valid excuse. This is why I don't support giving any funding to Comcast, AT&T, Verizon or any of the big companies to expand their network. IMO, they haven't made the effort, and therefore don't deserve any help. You can always build up a network and make it happen if you like. |
|
 hobgoblinSortof AgoblinPremium
join:2001-11-25
Orchard Park, NY
kudos:4 | reply to Rob
said by Rob:There's simply no excuse why every home in the U.S. cannot subscribe to DSL. If they have access to a phone line, they should have access to DSL. The same goes with cable TV. There's just no valid excuse. This is why I don't support giving any funding to Comcast, AT&T, Verizon or any of the big companies to expand their network. IMO, they haven't made the effort, and therefore don't deserve any help. So are you saying that a public company (lets say Comcast) has to run cable to every home in their footprint no matter how rural it is? This may mean that they may never get a return on their investement?
ROI is a very valid excuse for a company whose sole purpose is to make money. Telco's and Cable companies are not charities.
Hob
--
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
|
|
| I think everybody agrees on this. The question now is how to subsidize these deployments. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to Rob
ou'd be correct if you were talking about T1 service. However distance limitations (24kfeet from the CO) mean that on really long loops (in really rural areas) DSL can't make it all the way to everyone. Granted, folks like »hctc.net have pushed out 3 Mbps DSL to the VAST majority of their customers but there's a reason that 3/768 DSL costs 133% more on HCTC than it does on Verizon, and double what it does with the more rural Windstream.
Also, your smallest DSLAMs have eight ports or so. If there aren't eight customers within 24,000 feet of the DSLAM (and it happens in some areas) then DSL isn't cost-effective. Even then, the cost to get a fat pipe to the remote terminal may be prohibitive.
Fiber solves the distance problem (PON can reach 20km, active can reach longer) however that requires new infrastructure altogether, which has a cost per foot involved (and a high one). |
|
RayWPremium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
kudos:1 | reply to Rob
said by Rob:There's simply no excuse why every home in the U.S. cannot subscribe to DSL. If they have access to a phone line, they should have access to DSL. The same goes with cable TV. There's just no valid excuse. This is why I don't support giving any funding to Comcast, AT&T, Verizon or any of the big companies to expand their network. IMO, they haven't made the effort, and therefore don't deserve any help. 1. I am over 8 miles from the central office on what is called pair gained lines. Dial up was a screaming 9-15K, usually, if I was lucky. We got DSL (so the rumor has it) because two state congress peoples lived in my area and QWEST put a remote DSL feed (aka DSLAM) near me while they were buying votes to make UTOPIA illegal (since most people here voted for it, despite the propaganda).
2. I like how SOME people gripe about communities building their own infrastructure with taxes and bonds because the incumbents won't do it, but it is okay to give our tax money to those same incumbents to waste on boats and parties and to buy high level politicians to pass favorable laws protecting them. So like you said, stop giving them tax payer dollars.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to Karl Bode
Don't subsidize them. Make any telco who doesn't serve 100% of their customers out of a certain CO give the CO over to a cooperative. Or at least hand over control of the affected lines to the cooperative. Also make the ILEC give the cooperative reasonable pricing on bandwidth ($500 for a 10 Mbit connection, $1000 for a 30 Mbit connection).
Co-ops allow for cost-based pricing, so if it's more expensive to deploy DSL to an area they can pass the costs on without anyone complaining. $70 3M DSL IMHO is better than no DSL, or $70 1.5M satellite. |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
1 edit | Don't subsidize them. Make any telco who doesn't serve 100% of their customers out of a certain CO give the CO over to a cooperative. Or at least hand over control of the affected lines to the cooperative. Also make the ILEC give the cooperative reasonable pricing on bandwidth ($500 for a 10 Mbit connection, $1000 for a 30 Mbit connection). That works too.  My point being the argument isn't over whether companies have the right to make an investment return, it's about where to go from here.
The problem I think you'd find with your model is that these carriers often want their cake and eat it too. They want to be able to selectively not service a market, but they want the possibility left completely open should they sometime decide to (look at municipal broadband bans). Also, what happens should the Co-Op fail? Does the government step in to subsidize? |
|
| reply to iansltx
And when the co-op "fails" who is going to pick it up? The gov't? |
|
RobIn Deo speramus, God Bless the USAPremium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2 | reply to hobgoblin
said by hobgoblin:said by Rob:There's simply no excuse why every home in the U.S. cannot subscribe to DSL. If they have access to a phone line, they should have access to DSL. The same goes with cable TV. There's just no valid excuse. This is why I don't support giving any funding to Comcast, AT&T, Verizon or any of the big companies to expand their network. IMO, they haven't made the effort, and therefore don't deserve any help. So are you saying that a public company (lets say Comcast) has to run cable to every home in their footprint no matter how rural it is? This may mean that they may never get a return on their investement? ROI is a very valid excuse for a company whose sole purpose is to make money. Telco's and Cable companies are not charities. Hob I understand they aren't charities, but if they want to have franchise agreements that gives them sole control as the provider in that market, then yes, they need to run cable to every home in their footprint.
Just look at how far BellSouth went when Lafayette wanted to run their own fiber network.
--
CheckSite.us | YourIP.us | Reverseip.us |
|
RobIn Deo speramus, God Bless the USAPremium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2 | reply to NOCTech75
said by NOCTech75:said by Rob:There's simply no excuse why every home in the U.S. cannot subscribe to DSL. If they have access to a phone line, they should have access to DSL. The same goes with cable TV. There's just no valid excuse. This is why I don't support giving any funding to Comcast, AT&T, Verizon or any of the big companies to expand their network. IMO, they haven't made the effort, and therefore don't deserve any help. You can always build up a network and make it happen if you like. It'd be impossible. I'd spend more time in litigation than actually building the network. The telco's and cable companies would see that my funding would all be spent in court and not in the actual network.
--
CheckSite.us | YourIP.us | Reverseip.us |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | reply to Karl Bode
Give me an example of when a cooperative has failed. By definition it's a very hard thing to do. There has to be no demand for services rendered in order for that to happen. |
|
RobIn Deo speramus, God Bless the USAPremium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2 | reply to Lazlow
I understand the distance limitation. Again, this isn't a valid excuse. They haven't made an effort. Instead, they cherry pick and then call it a day.
There is simply no excuse that every home in the U.S., by now, does not have access to a reliable Internet. They've had 10+ years to get around to wiring our country.
--
CheckSite.us | YourIP.us | Reverseip.us |
|
| reply to Rob
said by Rob:There's simply no excuse why every home in the U.S. cannot subscribe to DSL. If they have access to a phone line, they should have access to DSL. The same goes with cable TV. There's just no valid excuse. This is why I don't support giving any funding to Comcast, AT&T, Verizon or any of the big companies to expand their network. IMO, they haven't made the effort, and therefore don't deserve any help. With cable if you are far out from the headend you can have hard time getting digital cable and HSI. |
|
Airwolf7Premium
join:2004-12-12
Franklin, KY
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Comcast
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:I think everybody agrees on this. The question now is how to subsidize these deployments. The $98,000,000,000 that was wasted in fiscal year 2009 would be one Hell of a start!
We could start a ten year plan today using money that would otherwise be wasted. I bet that $1,000,000,000,000 would buy some real nice Internet service.
.
More than $98 billion in improper gov't payments »news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091118/ap_···nt_waste
"WASHINGTON – More than $98 billion in taxpayer dollars spent by government agencies was wasted, much of it on questionable claims for tax credits and Medicare benefits, representing an increase of $26 billion from the previous year." |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to iansltx
Not saying it's going to. I like the Co-Op model. I've been watching my Uncle negotiate through one in Virginia with great interest. But what happens if it does? Assuming it becomes the defacto model for all coverage gaps, isn't the possibility viable? Don't get me wrong, I like the idea. |
|
| reply to hobgoblin
Umm, actually, YES, Comcast has to run cable to EVERY HOME in their footprint, at least in the states that haven't been bought by the telco's. Part of the agreement to let comcrap (and telcos) to use the poles (owned by electric company), is that the LOCAL BOARD forces them to provide telephone and cable to anyplace that has electricity. At least that's the way it is where I live. And guess what, the LOCAL board is a GOOD thing. Every home has electricity, telephone and cable BECAUSE it's a MONOPOLY. Guess what, telcos and cables do not have a right to RIP OFF PEOPLE simply BECAUSE they are a monopoly, in fact, their profits should be LIMITED because they are a monopoly,
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to Airwolf7
Shhhh! In order to have a conversation with people in the industry, you have to pretend their employers haven't gotten billions in unaccountable tax breaks and subsidies over countless generations to provide service only partially delivered and at exorbitant prices.
What, are you new at this? |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to Rob
said by Rob:said by NOCTech75:said by Rob:There's simply no excuse why every home in the U.S. cannot subscribe to DSL. If they have access to a phone line, they should have access to DSL. The same goes with cable TV. There's just no valid excuse. This is why I don't support giving any funding to Comcast, AT&T, Verizon or any of the big companies to expand their network. IMO, they haven't made the effort, and therefore don't deserve any help. You can always build up a network and make it happen if you like. It'd be impossible. I'd spend more time in litigation than actually building the network. The telco's and cable companies would see that my funding would all be spent in court and not in the actual network. Why not a be a do-er instead of asking someone else to do it? |
|
