dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
892
share rss forum feed

Lazlow

join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO

100% first

I would rather see 5/512 to 100% of the population (at sub $30/month price tag) before we move to the higher speed. It would also be an idea to increase the incentives to make the systems 100Mbps capable to rural areas.


Natoma6

join:1999-08-30
Brooklyn, NY

1 recommendation

20/5 to 100% of the population by 2015 is doable and aggressive enough.

Remember, that's 6 full years away if it's end of 2015.
--
--Natoma


Lazlow

join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO

Anyway one provides wired(including fiber) internet to most rural areas is going to require putting down new wire(fiber/whatever). In NY that will not be much of an issue but look at the central core of the US (say ND straight south to TX). You are talking about running millions of miles of new stuff, it is going to take a while. Just look back in history to see how long it took to run electricity(REA) to those areas. Phone was the same.



meh37II

@verizon.net
reply to Lazlow

Same here, though I'd rather set it at 5/2 for $30 (or less) and 1/512 for $15 (or less)--just give everyone the opportunity to get off of dial-up (where that's their only option now). Thing is, all of the ISPs hawking 50 and 100 are killing off the "slow" single-digit tiers--they just aren't "profitable enough" to justify the expenditure (because reasonable profit isn't enough... it's gotta be ungodly profit in order to be an incentive to build out). Wireless will possibly enable it, just not cheaply enough (profit... again).


Lazlow

join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO

Wireless will be an option in some areas but in a lot of areas it is just a no go. If you look at the way houses were built (geographically) in the area I mentioned, you will see that most of the homes were built in valleys. This means they loose their line of sight and wireless does not work. The reason the houses are built in these valleys is due to the wind(1 tree per square mile is common, so nothing to stop the wind) and lightning (if the house is in the valley it is not the highest thing around).

IF they put down the new lines to these areas it is highly likely that they will put down fiber. The majority of the expense is burying the cable not how much the cable costs. So the price difference between the fiber and wire itself becomes insignificant. This becomes even more likely when one considers upgrades. On fiber when you upgrade you pretty much just change the equipment at both ends. With most wire based upgrades they usually need to upgrade the wire itself, an easy example of this is when they started moving to D3 here in St. Louis. It was massively delayed becuase so much of the cable had to be replaced (D1 era cable).

DSL and its variants usually just drop out due to distance issues. With many of these areas having less than 10 people per square mile, dsl would require a RO/RT for every 3(ball park) homes(mom,dad, two kids). They also would need new lines ran due to the limited number of lines buried in the 70s.



ArrayList
netbus developer
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Brighton, MA
Reviews:
·RCN CABLE
·Comcast
reply to Lazlow

the more we piss and moan about how long it takes to do things like this the less it gets done. in 5-10 years they could get all this done. its not going to happen because the powers that be don't want it to happen.
--
sbcglobal.net speedtest result 11/11/09 - 5256kbps



meh37II

@verizon.net
reply to Lazlow

I'm still hopeful (silly me) that something useful will come from white-spaces... useful, and [relatively] cheap.


Sammer

join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

said by meh37II :

I'm still hopeful (silly me) that something useful will come from white-spaces... useful, and [relatively] cheap.
Haven't you heard, if those who are making up this National Broadband Plan get their way at least 25 of the remaining 49 television channels as well the equivalent of 100 analog television channels of other prime spectrum will be auctioned (undoubtedly to AT&T and Verizon Wireless) for spectrum licenses and there won't be any room anywhere for white spaces. The wireless phone industry already has over 500 MHz of spectrum while the television industry now has less than 300 MHz (some of that shared) so guess who the real bandwidth hogs are?


IowaMan
Premium
join:2008-08-21
Grinnell, IA
reply to Lazlow

I agree for basic use 5-6 Mb is a good starting spot for the Upload it needs to be at 768K being the baseline IMO
As 3Mb/256K is starting to become slow at $29.95 per Month



knightmb
Everybody Lies

join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN
reply to Lazlow

said by Lazlow:

Wireless will be an option in some areas but in a lot of areas it is just a no go. If you look at the way houses were built (geographically) in the area I mentioned, you will see that most of the homes were built in valleys. This means they loose their line of sight and wireless does not work. The reason the houses are built in these valleys is due to the wind(1 tree per square mile is common, so nothing to stop the wind) and lightning (if the house is in the valley it is not the highest thing around).
That's not an issue anymore, as a person who to runs (2) wireless ISP companies I can say the problem has already been solved and a solution is already being implemented. But this isn't the place to get into a long technical discussion as to why or how because that's exactly what the competition wants to know.
--
Fight Insight Ready (Was NebuAD) and the like:
Click Here to pollute their data