reply to septcasey
Re: [Availability] 10 years later, still no DSL from AT&T availa I mentioned to OP how the sites are generally picked in a message. For the most part it is Engineering & Marketing, but soooo many factors go into play. Among the top are: number of potential subscribers and ease of install.
POTENTIAL: If you take a CEV (underground vault), CEC (half under, half above ground) or hut you have the potential for 0 to >6,000 lines. The newest copper based cabinets a tad above 2,000, and the older cabs can max out at 96 lines. The smallest I've seen? A Fiber Reach OC1 with a little SLC5 that only handles 24.
SIGNAL: The oldest DSLAM's I've worked with are the Alcatel 1000 MiniRAM's (I think 8 dsl lines max), and shortly thereafter the Alcatel 1000 ASAM (48 dsl lines max). Each of these needed 2 to 4 DS1 lines for their backhaul connection. This means you'd need a SoNET multiplexer onsite, which means you'll need a fiber ring buried (or hung in OP's case) around the city/neighborhood. Those two systems are still live, but haven't been installed since ~2001. The newer systems use DS3's, with Uverse 1G fiber.
POWER: You need commercial power to feed all of this. In a city this isn't an issue at all, but out in the sticks it can be a major pain. Batteries are installed in all, but the most odd situations. A minimum of 8 hours is aimed for, but a multitude of variables can shrink that in half OR allow the site to live for day(s).
What I'm getting it is cost and ease per install. The investment to walk into an area, engineer a plan, lay XYZ feet of fiber, install a cabinet, pay to have commercial power ran to it and lay new copper to the customers is big. As with Uverse, xDSL is also distance limited. If you have houses spread apart by acres and acres, pastures, vast grasslands you've cut into the customer potential; and additional cabinets will need to be installed. Of course, that >doubles the cost of DSL penetration.
ANSWER: Wireless. Wireless will most-likely be the answer to getting broadband out in the boonies, and areas where laying fiber is nearly impossible. (Regardless if due to various regulations, city ordinances, obsticles, etc.) Yes, the cell towers need fiber too, but it serves dual roles: cell phone service and broadband. This makes the bean counters, who run all business', happy.
If nothing else, now you have an idea of some of the factors that come into play. Hope it helps a little to open up the bigger picture.
this is the the reality. we have been fighting for DSL in rural areas for years. In some cases the solution didnt cost that much and they finally did provide DSL and customers subscribed so fast we had to turn up additional lines. I saw a wireless 4g lte modem in Texas that tested 54Mb so I am guessing they are thinking that will be cheaper in the future. Of course 54Mb on a network that has few customers on it so its not a fair comparison to older architectures like wireline DSL. There are a lot of costs involved in wireline DSL to rural areas for sure. I heard in one town we paid $5000 to pay for right of way across three people's yards so they abandoned the project temporarily so you the hurdles are there. Imagine $100,000 to get 100 lines of DSL to a remote RT and what will the "take rate" be? OK let's say 75% so 75 people paying $30 a month minus the initial dispatches per house $100 per truck roll minimum. at&t has computer models that dictate where capital money is spent. it sucks when I have to tell MY customers this but... you might break even after 5 years maybe? check my math, I'm just trying to guess what they are thinking on this.
and don't forget the DSL will not reach as far as the voice does. if there is a load coil between you and the RT it has to be removed to allow DSL to pass so there's more costs to do cable work. so the "take rate" also involves a radius of homes within range of the DSLAM. This is important in areas where there are 50 acre farms
Greenwood Springs, MS
| From NE Mississippi: I can remember when dial-up was all we had here. We are 13 or so road miles from the city limits in a decidedly rural area of the county. We are 3.5 road miles from the DSLAM/RT, so I guess the fact that we can get 1.5M DSL is a blessing. We are near the end of the NXX copper line and that's another factor with distance. There were last upgrades out here in September according to AT&T but I didn't really see any change in the service or latency. If you look at the state broadband availability maps and trace it to my neighborhood you see that AT&T services a large part of the central county from our DSLAM/RT. There is a new DSLAM/RT that was installed about 2.5 miles from us in the other direction but not in our NXX. It has been there over a year and my cousin who lives a few houses away tells me that DSL is STILL not available there. You would think there would be a way to interconnect these two and improve service. I can remember last year when they came thru and laid down all this new fiber (big orange tubed cabling?) all over the area, but still no service improvements. I think it has alot to do with AT&T wanting to keep the money and not redistribute it into their infrastructure. The feeder lines are obviously in the area as I think they would be needed for the new box as well as a current AT&T cellular location and the NWS radar site located in a DSL NOT AVAIL area. (There is a aggregation point nearby but no DSL box which leaves the entire east county without broadband)|
Anyone have any ideas. In a world where the FCC says the average DSL speed is near 4M, it would be nice to be nearer to that than at half to 1/3 that?
I still find it humorous that in 2012 when Google or another site tries to GeoTag me it thinks I am in the university town 55 miles away or even worse, the state capital some 160 miles away.
i have seen contractors putting in interduct all over the place too. I heard it was somebody who got money from the govt and if that is true, it will probably play out like the Solindra solar scandal. Unless they spend money to put equipment on each end of that fiber, its just a waste. Then again their business model might involve leasing that fiber to any interested parties. Remember, as I've said a dozen times before, the telcos "return on assets" goes way down in rural areas. I remember how pissed everybody was over cable TV not coming out in the country for year (until satellite came into play).
Greenwood Springs, MS
I totally agree with you count. What burns my bubble is the fact that the government is giving out this money with no oversight to allow build out of infrastructure, with no public requirement that minimums be met. Its funny that the phone company says "Oh, its not physically possible to offer it there" UNTIL such time that something worth enough money moves to that area where it miraculously becomes physically possible. I remember the big argument for cable was not enough "homes per mile" and I figure Big bell uses the same argument, but that argument doesn't wash when you install the equipment and then don't turn it up. Three communities here in the east county if turned up would allow for (based on 2010 Census data) access to "up to" (Use of their words) 1500+ access lines where the people have no access to no other broadband service. With that situation many people would subscribe.
at&t does not get grant money like other small carries do.The money comes out of their construction budget,which is all ready over budget for 20012!!!!!! Don't see any upgrades in the future only fiber to cell site, so they can sell rural America 4g lte service.
Greenwood Springs, MS
I don't believe we were talking about "grant" money per-se, but from recent reports stimulus based money was set aside for ALL landline providers of broadband service to build-out and improve broadband service to rural customers. I believe the money was to come from fees collected thru the Universal Service Fund. It was specifically targeted to areas currently listed as "unserved or underserved" and is designed to improve chances for businesses to locate in these areas and thus provide more jobs in a local market. As far as 4G goes, we currently barely have 3G here, so unless 4G has a better range, little good it will do us with ONE freaking tower out here.
Yea every time I go into town about 8 miles from here I see the AT&T Uverse signs sticking out of the ground on streets of houses and I think to myself, "Well gosh, they are giving this town everything and can't even run some DSL lines to my town 8 miles down the road?" They literally do not care about the really rural places. We have been getting home phone service through AT&T for I don't know how many years. In fact I think most everyone here where I live gets home phone through AT&T so I don't know why they have neglected us of DSL service. Our satellite internet contract has finally ended and we want to switch to a cheaper ISP but there isn't anything available other than dial up as far as I know. I'm telling you living in rural areas is just asking to be forgotten and treated like you don't exist because even the largest service providers can't bring their services to you.
We could get mobile broadband from AT&T or a couple other providers but its $60/month for about 5GB of data which I'm sorry but is just ridiculous. I'd rather keep paying the extra $10 a month for satellite which offers way more data than that than to resort to the unfair and thoughtless prices of mobile broadband.
Greenwood Springs, MS
What shocks people sometime is that when you live in a rural area, sometimes they will even run the interduct through your neighborhood, past your neighborhood box, to that town where you saw the signs. I have a friend in the Carolinas like that. The rural town he lives in is between a large and medium sized town. He found out that the feeder line (interduct?) for the medium sized town about 6 miles away runs close to the highway about a mile from his home, right past the box his phone drops from to this town. Imagine that insult. You would think that if they were going past a box they would interconnect it, thus allowing more people access, but not always.
reply to cubguy
People get so mad but it is just the reality of the situation. On the flip side if at&t built out a killer solution to your house that was a solid 10Meg speed and a really good price (and no caps) the very day another provider came to the door offering the same thing for 50 cents a month less all of us would jump on it. We all shop at Walmart until whatever it is WE make shows up on the shelves saying made in China and WE get laid off. How can we be so hypocritical about it? All they're doing is following the money. Capitalism reminds me of referees in sports. Everybody loves it when it helps them but they hate it when it hurts them. Don't take it personally. If you dont have internet, its because nobody thinks its worth the cost to bring it to you. at&t, time warner, nobody.
reply to cubguy
like how the govt gave money to solar panels companies and loan guarantees to electric car companies etc. I believe they really mean well but corporations in a way are so much smarter than the govt. Its like corporations scam us for tax dollars. IIRC in the broadband bill the govt wanted a minimum speed requirement they caused all the players to turn down the grants. One thing I found out which I never considered but makes sense now, corporations get more for their money during bad economic times hence the u-verse build out the past 3 years?
Greenwood Springs, MS
reply to countscabula
I understand the "gotta make a bundle" mentality of corporations, but here is a prime example of waste at its best. AT&T installed a new DSLAM about 3 miles from here (not in my neighborhood, but the next one), its intact complete with the power meter, but to this date, DSL is not available to the residents who will feed off this "really expensive" paperweight. Its the prime example of the gap between planning and engineering. Most planning was done 10 years ago before UVERSE was thought out and DSL was the thing. Now they have decided that DSL is old news and UVERSE is the thing, way before they are able to offer it in a comparative market to the DSL service areas. Can we say One Step Forward and Two Steps Back. You are correct about the Wal-Mart mentality though. We all complain till something is cheap, then complain again because it isn't 50 cents cheaper and will sell out just about any provider of any service to save. Now on the other side of that a business says "Okay, if 9.95 sells, then 10.95 will too." I understand both sides of that. People have to save money, but if they aren't willing to make the investment in a company, then the company takes the same stance about them. On the flipside a company needs to understand that there is a line limit to what people will pay for goods and services. Do we do it do ourselves? Probably, Most likely, Yep!.....I went to work in an era where Levi's were still made here (I worked in the factory)...but I look back at my resume over 23 years and of all the places I have worked only a few are still in business cause they were priced out of the market.