dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
31
share rss forum feed

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

1 recommendation

reply to mlcarson

Re: National infrastructure

said by mlcarson:

This is a horrible waste of resources.

How so? Economically speaking, how is investing a majority of resources to support a majority of society a waste of those resources?
said by mlcarson:

The whole country should be built once with a fiber infrastructure

Economically speaking again, how is that not a huge waste of resources? Spending more money to serve an extreme minority of society rather than spending less to benefit the majority is horribly inefficient?

JasonBourne

join:2000-05-22
Kansas City, MO
said by openbox9:

said by mlcarson:

This is a horrible waste of resources.

How so? Economically speaking, how is investing a majority of resources to support a majority of society a waste of those resources?

He's saying it's a huge waste of resources for companies A, B, and C to overbuild the same area. Do you really need three sets of lines covering an area when one is sufficient?

said by openbox9:

said by mlcarson:

The whole country should be built once with a fiber infrastructure

Economically speaking again, how is that not a huge waste of resources? Spending more money to serve an extreme minority of society rather than spending less to benefit the majority is horribly inefficient?

Again, he's saying instead of overbuilding one area multiple times, particularly the urban core, why not take those extra resources and build out the rest of the country?

I realize this maybe a bit pie in the sky for you, but we've moved on from hauling water from the well, using an outhouse, driving into town for the mail, and using candles to light our homes at night.

I think we owe it to ourselves as a nation to move on from the copper pair. How about we upgrade everyone's communication infrastructure at once and be done with it? Somehow we saw fit to do it with electricity, and again with the telephone, lets do it one more time with fiber.

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
said by JasonBourne:

He's saying it's a huge waste of resources for companies A, B, and C to overbuild the same area. Do you really need three sets of lines covering an area when one is sufficient?

Agreed, which is why we don't have overbuilders except for a few very rare locations.
said by JasonBourne:

Again, he's saying instead of overbuilding one area multiple times, particularly the urban core, why not take those extra resources and build out the rest of the country?

Because that costs more money than what most businesses believe to gain in return.
said by JasonBourne:

I think we owe it to ourselves as a nation to move on from the copper pair.

And we are. That just happens to by by wireless in the more economically challenging areas.


NoChoice

@bellsouth.net
reply to JasonBourne
Here it is again. Forget that telephone and electricity stuff; the postal service, too. Ancient history. Anytime this imbalance comes up, they always fall back on the same argument. So, you can't even get dsl out in the country? Too bad. It's your own fault for living out in the boonies. Maybe it's time we take them up on it. Let's abandon rural America. Come on -- toss your pitiful belongings in the donkey cart; throw Granny in the back of the horse wagon, and haul your bumpkin butts to The BIG City!! Millions of us, like a hoard of locusts. BIG City, you think your streets are too congested now? Wait. You think you can't find a good house/apt now? Wait. You think the grocery lines are too long now? Wait. How about when the shelves are empty? Wait. Yes, they have told us the solution every time. Yes, let's abandon rural America.

WhatNow
Premium
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
Wait til the cost of food goes way up because the farms are shut down.

There is a third factor to the wand need and that is price. If 50 meg FTTH was offered at close to the current 10 meg prices a lot of people would take it. Anybody that wants the speed can buy a dedicated fiber line to their home but it will cost you a fortune.


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
reply to openbox9
said by openbox9:

Economically speaking again, how is that not a huge waste of resources? Spending more money to serve an extreme minority of society rather than spending less to benefit the majority is horribly inefficient?

Seriously? The fiber would serve the entire population; which extreme minority or majority do you refer to?
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
The fiber only serves the entire population if it's deployed to the entire population. Serving huge swaths of sparsely populated lands all across the US is less economically efficient than serving dense population centers. mcarlson See Profile said,

"largest urban areas will have multiple vendors building multiple infrastructures while most of America is completely neglected. This is a horrible waste of resources. The whole country should be built once with a fiber infrastructure before this is allowed to happen."

Utilizing a large percentage of resource to serve a small percentage of the population is not the best use of our resources, economically speaking. You can argue that every man, woman, and child should have fiber running to them, but the economics of it make less sense than investing in densely populated environments.

JasonBourne See Profile pointed out that mcarlson See Profile was discussing efficiency concerns with overbuilders, which I'll agree isn't the most efficient use of resources (it's not that big of an issue since we don't have many overbuilders across the country). But that doesn't change the fact that the economic efficiencies of deploying infrastructure in densely populated environments exceed those of deploying infrastructure in the sparsely populated corners of the US.


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Well, that makes sense.

However, you could make the argument of any competitive business, that it would be more efficient to just have "One" company building infrastructure instead of competing ones building similar facilities in duplicate to compete.

However, given the past history of monopolization or even oligopolization, I'll take the "inefficiency" of "overbuilt" industries vs the "efficiency" of just the one business.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
I think the point rather is to have a single, socialized infrastructure with competing service providers leveraging that infrastructure. That mitigates efficiency concerns and allows for a competitive marketplace. But as is usually the case, "we" don't want to pay for it.