PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| Verizon's pathetic
quote:
DSL was formally rolled out in 2003 and is available to about 60% of the city. "We think we have a pretty good network in Danville," says Verizon spokesman John Knapp.
They consider 60% availability "pretty good"? That says alot about why Verizon's DSL deployment is so abysmal.
Anything less than 100% should be considered unacceptable. And if they were at ~100%, I bet the muni wouldn't even have bothered. |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
 ·Comcast
| said by PDXPLT  :
Anything less than 100% should be considered unacceptable. And if they were at ~100%, I bet the muni wouldn't even have bothered.
If the muni hadn't bothered, they probably still wouldn't have DSL. In most of these small towns, the incumbents won't get off their @sses until they see a challenge to their monopolies.
I wonder how fast the telcos would start rolling out fiber if the U.S. gov't suddenly decided it was going to wire the country (but wasn't going to give the money to the telcos to do it)? |
|
maartena
Stacked.
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to PDXPLT
said by PDXPLT :
quote:
DSL was formally rolled out in 2003 and is available to about 60% of the city. "We think we have a pretty good network in Danville," says Verizon spokesman John Knapp.
They consider 60% availability "pretty good"? That says alot about why Verizon's DSL deployment is so abysmal.
Anything less than 100% should be considered unacceptable. And if they were at ~100%, I bet the muni wouldn't even have bothered.
Technically speaking, broadband is available to pretty much 100% of the U.S. population (lets say 99.9% because there is always that one exception....), but no one in their right mind is going to drop down $250 a month for a 512 kbit/s satellite connection.
As far as land-based and ground-level wireless services go, I think we can reach a penetration of about 90% of the U.S. population. There is always that 10% of the population that lives in farms with nothing in 10 miles in each direction, live up in mountain cabins, and places like Nothing, AZ - Population 19. (I have BEEN there!) with just a few trailers and a local bar. It is very unlikely that land based services will ever reach those communities.
But 90% of penetration should certainly be feasable. Currently in The Netherlands its 98%, but thats 16 million people packed in an area half the size of Vermont. Not hard to do.... but still there is 2% that won't ever get it because they simply live too far out. Germany and France are at about 80 to 85% penetration. 90% is certainly possible there, and thats also possible in the United States.
--
And i'm right. I'm always right, but this time I'm a little more right then I usually am. |
|
iowaresident
@sdnet.net | Iam one of those that lives on a farm. Our local phone company tells me DSL is only usuable within 3 miles of switch. Is this true? |
|
evoxfan
Waiting On Dsl Or Cable
join:2004-02-12
Daleville, AL
| Yes, but they could put up a Remote Terminal further out and deploy DSL to greater distances than that. They just don't want to spend the $$.
--
WinXP_Home, 1.8GHz P4, 512DDR, DAK421_P15, DW4000 Two-Way, SRS, SatMex5, 1130MHz, Proxy on, DrTCP. |
|
The Answer Guy
@da.u
| Yes, we could put DSL into remote terminals, but do you know the cost for doing this. It costs more to install DSL in a remote terminal than it does to put it into the central office. If you consider a bullseye of +/- 3 miles for each site and then try to cover the entire U.S., do you realize how many you need to install?
I'm sure someone ambitious could get the figure, but I think I have proven my point without it. |
|
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| reply to maartena
They weren't talking about outlying areas: it's only 60% even considering just the city itself. For a city, urban, area, they should do no less than 100%.
Also, if you look at statistics for small mom 'n pop telcos that serve rural areas, their deployment percentages are surprisingly high -- much higher than the ILEC average. Why? I guess because they actually feel a need to serve their customers and their communities. They use long-range and/or repeaterable technology like the things companies like Paradyne have. The big ILEC's are still just using broadband as a bargaining chip in their dealings with regulators and politicians, and largely don't seem to give a rat's arse about serving their subscribers' needs. |
|
niplet
join:2003-10-04
Antioch, TN
| reply to The Answer Guy
go fiber, cheaper in the long run due to less maintenance and if you wnat me to pay the $1000 to run it to my home, at least that is the price i see floating around that it will cost the telco's to run fiber to each home, let me go and grab the credit card/ checkbook, i know a lot of people in their late twenties to mid thirties like myself that are tired of waiting and if we have to pay out of our pockets to have it then we are willing to do so. we do not like being left behind in the world of technology. so if bellsouth exec's read this bring it i will pay it! just bring it to middle tennessee! |
|
moko
join:2002-12-22
Fayetteville, GA
1 edit | reply to PDXPLT
if the bells would not let you pay for laying the line yourself;could someone find a small co. to lay the line[dry line??],and then call up a provider to connect you......kind of like when i checked with speakeasy,they said that the bells hade "electronics" on the line,and the could not connect me....but i checked LBDSL,and they said, they could run a new wire[dry line]for me for 300 bucks.
ofcourse it would cost alot more if your also farther away from co. ........but would the lay the line,and dslam, for a price???? |
|
