dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
1237

WiseOldBear
Laissez les bons temps rouler!
Premium Member
join:2001-11-25
Litchfield Park, AZ

WiseOldBear

Premium Member

Pond scum subspecies

All elected politicians are pond scum and their political appointments are a even scummier subset.

tlylework
@steadfastdns.net

tlylework

Anon

While I would agree the FCC is a bit of a joke, the cost of entry into the 1GB market is cost prohibitive for most. Not to mention what the providers would charge for it. I currently pay $55/month for 18mb uverse connection. I can only imagine what I would pay for 1GB.

AnonPerson
join:2000-08-26
Lexington, KY

AnonPerson

Member

Nice, I pay $55/month for 15mbps/1mbps. Last month it was only 10mbps but they upgraded everybody for 'free'.

elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO

1 edit

elios to tlylework

Member

to tlylework
seems to cost about 70 bucks a month
at lest from Google.... just saying..
providing the bandwidth is cheap dirt cheap
even running fiber on poles isnt that much

Google said the most expensive part was any where they had to put cable in the ground
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

silbaco

Premium Member

Google should have put all of it in the ground.

Google probably got a lot better rate for bandwidth from their upstream for Google Fiber. That's not always possible in most areas.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA

NormanS to tlylework

MVM

to tlylework
said by tlylework :

I currently pay $55/month for 18mb uverse connection.

I pay only $19.98/month for 15 Mbps ...
NormanS

NormanS to silbaco

MVM

to silbaco
said by silbaco:

Google should have put all of it in the ground.

Why? If the other utilities are on poles, why not fiber?
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

silbaco

Premium Member

Other utilities should not be on poles either. It's just an attempt to save money that doesn't really work. If you don't own the poles, then you have to pay to use them. Every time a storm blows in you have to role trucks to fix the downed lines. Their customers have to suffer service outages. They should just do it right the first time and put the cables in the ground.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

NormanS

MVM

said by silbaco:

Other utilities should not be on poles either. It's just an attempt to save money that doesn't really work. If you don't own the poles, then you have to pay to use them. Every time a storm blows in you have to role trucks to fix the downed lines. Their customers have to suffer service outages. They should just do it right the first time and put the cables in the ground.

Haven't had a storm blow shit off the poles, here, in more than 50 years. Had buried shit severely messed up in San Francisco twice since 1906.
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

silbaco

Premium Member

It is an extremely common occurrence in the Midwest. Or trees falling on lines. Google will find that out sooner or later. Kansas city is in an area that can get ice storms too, although not overly common there. Ice will bring down everything.
34764170 (banned)
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

1 recommendation

34764170 (banned) to silbaco

Member

to silbaco
said by silbaco:

Google probably got a lot better rate for bandwidth from their upstream for Google Fiber.

They receive better rates because they're purchasing a large quantity of bandwidth. Other companies can do the same thing. Kansas City also isn't lacking in transit providers so there is competition. The markets that truly get raped typically only have one or two options. If companies are buying a lot of bandwidth they can backhaul it in from another major city. You tend to be screwed when you don't need a lot of it and there are very limited options.
34764170

34764170 (banned) to silbaco

Member

to silbaco
said by silbaco:

Other utilities should not be on poles either. It's just an attempt to save money that doesn't really work. If you don't own the poles, then you have to pay to use them. Every time a storm blows in you have to role trucks to fix the downed lines. Their customers have to suffer service outages. They should just do it right the first time and put the cables in the ground.

Are you going to provide the millions in additional capital it would take to do so?

keithps
Premium Member
join:2002-06-26
Soddy Daisy, TN

keithps to NormanS

Premium Member

to NormanS
I pay only $69 for 100/100Mbps...
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

silbaco to 34764170

Premium Member

to 34764170
Google has the money.

The cost of putting lines in the ground often times pays for itself in the long run. But companies don't like to think long term.
silbaco

silbaco to 34764170

Premium Member

to 34764170
They receive better rates because they are Google. Munis and cooperatives struggle greatly under the cost of upstream bandwidth. Sure buying more makes bandwidth less expensive, but in order to buy more you have to spend more. That isn't an option for a small company. Only large corporations or those fortunate enough to be in an area where upstream bandwidth is cheaper.

If my ISP tried to offer 1Gbps for $70 per month, they would lose money on the cost of bandwidth alone.
34764170 (banned)
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

1 edit

34764170 (banned)

Member

said by silbaco:

They receive better rates because they are Google. Munis and cooperatives struggle greatly under the cost of upstream bandwidth. Sure buying more makes bandwidth less expensive, but in order to buy more you have to spend more. That isn't an option for a small company. Only large corporations or those fortunate enough to be in an area where upstream bandwidth is cheaper.

If my ISP tried to offer 1Gbps for $70 per month, they would lose money on the cost of bandwidth alone.

Your comment was commenting on cheaper bandwidth only. Google is offering the service cheaper because it is subsidized by ads! One has nothing to do with the other and they're two completely different issues.
34764170

34764170 (banned) to silbaco

Member

to silbaco
said by silbaco:

Google has the money.

The cost of putting lines in the ground often times pays for itself in the long run. But companies don't like to think long term.

Yes, they're rolling out an all fibre network but they're not thinking long term.
Austinloop
join:2001-08-19
Austin, TX

1 recommendation

Austinloop to silbaco

Member

to silbaco
Of course, backhoes, boring machines, large augers, etc., never damage cable. Water never gets into cables, etc. Sorry, but the expense and time to fix a damaged buried, or underground cable is most usually longer and more costly than a repair of an aerial cable due to the necessity to accurately locate the the damage, than have it dug up, and then repaired. Not to mention that damages to aerial cables are much easier to find.

Several years ago, the cost for burying cable here in the rock (rock starts about 6 inches to 1 foot below grade was in the neighborhood of $4 to $5 dollars per foot.

morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000

morbo to silbaco

Member

to silbaco
Too bad the solution for downed lines is to abandon service, not fix the downed lines. We've all seen how electric companies never repair downed power lines.

elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO

elios to 34764170

Member

to 34764170
if you think every other ISP in the world isnt selling user data your dead wrong
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

silbaco to 34764170

Premium Member

to 34764170
They are deploying fiber because it would be idiotic to deploy copper.
silbaco

silbaco to 34764170

Premium Member

to 34764170
You misinterpreted my comment. I was talking about upstream bandwidth the entire time.
silbaco

silbaco to elios

Premium Member

to elios
My ISP isn't. I would know about it if they did.

elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO

elios

Member

thats nice bet your ass AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and the other big ones are
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

silbaco

Premium Member

Highly possible.

MovieLover76
join:2009-09-11
Cherry Hill, NJ
(Software) pfSense
Asus RT-AC68
Asus RT-AC66

MovieLover76 to NormanS

Member

to NormanS
Living in NJ, even before Sandy I can say that downed wires are extremely common, in CA I'm sure you don't have as many powerful storms as we do in NJ.

Some areas in NJ have underground wires, normally the richer areas, they don't lose power or phone as often as the areas served by poles, and even when they do, the power comes back much faster, because the problem is centralized, normally it's the transformer itself, downed lines take much longer and are more costly to fix.

In NJ we've always wanted underground wires, even more so since Sandy.
Does it cost more, yes obviously. But in some areas it really would make much more sense in the long run.

tschmidt
MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
·Consolidated Com..
·Republic Wireless
·Hollis Hosting

tschmidt to silbaco

MVM

to silbaco
said by silbaco:

Other utilities should not be on poles either. It's just an attempt to save money that doesn't really work. If you don't own the poles, then you have to pay to use them.

Saving money is not irrelevant, lowering infrastructure cost goes a long way to increasing penetration. Aerial infrastructure is enough of an eyesore already, I don't want separate poles for: power, phone, Cable, Etc.
said by silbaco:

Every time a storm blows in you have to role trucks to fix the downed lines. They should just do it right the first time and put the cables in the ground.

I respectfully disagree. Here in NH most utilities are above ground. In the thirty years we have lived here have lost power dozens of times, sometimes for a week on end. We have never once lost phone service. When a tree falls on aerial service the power cables break the fall so tree gets hung up and usually does not sever cable or phone service.

Same thing in a traffic accident. Down pole may short out power conductors but communication cables are rarely damaged.

Underground service costs about 10X what aerial does and it is not immune to disruption: frost heaves and errant backhoes play havoc with underground service. In addition it is much harder to find and repair underground faults.

If I had my druthers we would implement some type of wholesale fiber first-mile implementation. Various service providers would rent strands or lambdas (colors) to deliver end user service. Primary and secondary power would be at the top of the pole, multi-fiber cable underneath and all the existing legacy cable, phone, cable, fire alarm, etal removed.

In dense urban environments underground utilities make sense but that is the exception not the rule. If you want to pay the premium that is fine but it should not be the norm due to expense.

By way of example our house is 600 feet off the road. When we built it decided to go aerial for the first 400 feet then underground for the last couple of hundred. Neither has been a problem.

/tom
tschmidt

tschmidt to silbaco

MVM

to silbaco
said by silbaco:

Other utilities should not be on poles either. It's just an attempt to save money that doesn't really work. If you don't own the poles, then you have to pay to use them.

Saving money is not irrelevant, lowering infrastructure cost goes a long way to increasing penetration. Aerial infrastructure is enough of an eyesore already, I don't want separate poles for: power, phone, Cable, Etc.
said by silbaco:

Every time a storm blows in you have to role trucks to fix the downed lines. They should just do it right the first time and put the cables in the ground.

I respectfully disagree. Here in NH most utilities are above ground. In the thirty years we have lived here have lost power dozens of times, sometimes for a week on end. We have never once lost phone service. When a tree falls on aerial service the power cables break the fall so tree gets hung up and usually does not sever cable or phone service.

Same thing in a traffic accident. Down pole may short out power conductors but communication cables are rarely damaged.

Underground service costs about 10X what aerial does and it is not immune to disruption: frost heaves and errant backhoes play havoc with underground service. In addition it is much harder to find and repair underground faults.

If I had my druthers we would implement some type of wholesale fiber first-mile implementation. Various service providers would rent strands or lambdas (colors) to deliver end user service. Primary and secondary power would be at the top of the pole, multi-fiber cable underneath and all the existing legacy cable, phone, cable, fire alarm, etal removed.

In dense urban environments underground utilities make sense but that is the exception not the rule. If you want to pay the premium that is fine but it should not be the norm due to expense.

/tom

PaulHikeS2
join:2003-03-06
Fitchburg, MA

1 edit

PaulHikeS2 to elios

Member

to elios
Post withdrawn
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

silbaco to tschmidt

Premium Member

to tschmidt
I have never seen phone lines placed above ground, so I can't comment on that. But I have seen ice bring down power and fiber.