| reply to rradina
Re: This is what everyone wants... The only reason it might cost so much to provide rural bandwidth is because of the duopolistic pricing of middle-mile backhaul. Otherwise it is not so different from suburban or urban provisioning prices. The rest of your points are henceforth asinine. |
|
| said by sonicmerlin:The only reason it might cost so much to provide rural bandwidth is because of the duopolistic pricing of middle-mile backhaul. Otherwise it is not so different from suburban or urban provisioning prices. I think you might want to reconsider that. Backhaul can be a problem in some areas, but it's hardly what's preventing higher speeds from being available in rural areas.
Consider a non-difficult installation area. A recent estimate I saw said to figure about $2000 a mile of capital for fiber or coax. In an urban situation, you might pass 100 homes per mile. That's $20 per home. In a suburban environment, you might pass 20 homes per mile. That's $100 per home. In a rural environment you may be lucky to pass 1 home per mile.
How is that "not so different"? |
|
| said by travelguy:said by sonicmerlin:The only reason it might cost so much to provide rural bandwidth is because of the duopolistic pricing of middle-mile backhaul. Otherwise it is not so different from suburban or urban provisioning prices. I think you might want to reconsider that. Backhaul can be a problem in some areas, but it's hardly what's preventing higher speeds from being available in rural areas. Consider a non-difficult installation area. A recent estimate I saw said to figure about $2000 a mile of capital for fiber or coax. In an urban situation, you might pass 100 homes per mile. That's $20 per home. In a suburban environment, you might pass 20 homes per mile. That's $100 per home. In a rural environment you may be lucky to pass 1 home per mile. How is that "not so different"? »www.dslprime.com/fiber-news/175-···dropping |
|
|
|
| Dropping a little then, but doesn't change the point. |
|
| said by travelguy:Dropping a little then, but doesn't change the point. Yes it does. Your estimates are off, as evidenced by the similar cost of rural vs. urban fiber. Urban fiber especially has its own complexities that add to the cost of deployment, due to the cramped nature of the living quarters and the lack of space in general. Rural households almost all live next to the main road, so it simplifies the installation a bit. |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | You are kidding about that "main road" business, aren't you? I guess you need to define rural America. Missouri has lots and lots of gravel roads. Are those main roads? Heck, I cannot even get AT&T to offer U-Verse and I'm only mile from Interstate 64 in a heavily urbanized area. If they don't want to run fiber to a node at the entrace to the subdivision and stretch revenue out of the tired old copper in our subdivision, how in the world can we justify running a mile of fiber down a gravel road to serve six houses? |
|
