how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
| reply to KrK
Re: Here in Oklahoma... said by KrK:
What's amazing is SBC has quoted the figure of 30 million dollars and which towns will receive DSL service. It appears the cost is about 1.3 million per town, according to SBC's own press release and figures. Apparently it isn't all THAT expensive to rollout DSL after all. (Ok, to me and you, 1.3 million is a lot.) But for a whole town, even a small town of 5,000 people, 1.3 million isn't that big of a deal. Let's say only 15% sign up, at $49.95 a month. That's 750 ppl, which is approx 450,000 a year revenue. Even with that low of market penetration, after a few years the install costs have been made up, and now all you have to do is cover maintenance and upgrades--- and chances are you'll gain customers too, so the overall revenue heads up away from costs, increasing profits.
Most of these towns don't have much in the way of cable TV service, more or less cable Internet, but as a result, DBS has done well. Hey, I use Dish Network here in town--- it would be a no brainer out in rural areas.
Glad to see you are finally making sense, Krk... at a 15% penetration rate (which is about the right number nowadays for DSL), it would take about 3 years of customers buying to pay off each town investment of 1.3 million. I guess it isn't free to deploy it afterall!
You did forget to add in things like uncollectable accounts, customer service and tech support, paying inside and outside techs, costs of billing, advertising and overhead, and the overall profit margin of the service too...
But things sound about right- businesses (including SBC) sell things to make money- and won't do it unless it is profitable to do so.
Boogie | |
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| said by boogie74:
I guess it isn't free to deploy it afterall!
You did forget to add in things like uncollectable accounts, customer service and tech support, paying inside and outside techs, costs of billing, advertising and overhead, and the overall profit margin of the service too...
But things sound about right- businesses (including SBC) sell things to make money- and won't do it unless it is profitable to do so.
Yes, I realize those are costs, and that the $49.95 isn't all profit... that's why I said it would take a few years to recover the initial investment, given a 15% market penetration. That's just a ballpark figure tho, because it doesn't include things like people who want premium DSL or businesess who pay for business DSL. Also, in my opinion, the 15% is on the low side. It's about right for today, but give it a few years and I think that market penetration will increase--- and you have to remember that cable Internet or even Dial-Up competition is scarce in a small town--- some of them are lucky to have even a dial up number that is local to them.
So I think given these conditions that DSL will have a higher percentage of customers then in a city where people have a wider range of options.
The main point being that the numbers suggest it is profitable to deploy DSL, even in small towns, right now, so why demand legislation first.
Without even minimal oversight, the potential for abuse is large. | |
| said by KrK, getting smarter every day:
The main point being that the numbers suggest it is profitable to deploy DSL, even in small towns, right now, so why demand legislation first.
said by www.newsok.com:
The law allows Southwestern Bell to expand networks without sharing the equipment or technology with other companies.
said by THE SAUSAGE KING OF CHICAGO:
It's all about the RTs and access to them
| | |
|
|
