said by Anonymous-1 :

It's not as simple as going to fiber. The reason that AT&T decided to use existing copper (at least for now) in the first place was the cost of the boxes that switch the fiber signal. For FTTP, you need one of these expensive boxes at every home. For FTTN, you need only one for every 100-500 homes (depending on how many homes each node supplies). Also, if you read actual customer reports, they are getting upwards of 75-90 mbps within range and there have been many instances of 25mbps or greater past 25mbps. Uverseusers.com has plenty of good info on this.

said by toadlife :

»AT&T VDSL: Gateway Sync at 97Mbps

said by Rob :

It would be a better solution. But if they installed Fiber now (like Verizon is doing) what will they bitch about in 10 years when they go crying to the government they can need funding to help bring the country into new era of technology?

said by XBL2009 :

If Bush hadn't wasted 500 Billion on the war we could all have fiber to the home and super soar away wireless connections all across America.

At least it would something tangible we could all enjoy.

said by NormanS :

Are you advocating government run Internet? That war money would have been used on other government pork than Internet; unless you mean to advocate nationalization of the telecommunications industry.

said by XBL2009 :

I believe it's called a loan. Government builds roads while business builds cars.

Create a single network all across the United States using fiber and the best wifi equipment.

The network would be completely open for a modest fee for anybody to use. The network would be maintained by a non profit corporation and oversight would be provided by congress and consumer groups.

Regional monopolies are NOT working for telcom.

said by NormanS :

That is not a loan.
But the federal government does not build "last mile" connections to their freeway network. You are speaking of federal money. The road analogy would be for the federal government to operate the backbones.
Who will build and maintain the "last mile" connections? That is where the greatest expense lies. The cost of FTTH, including the cost of the ONT on each premises.
The various states, and counties within those states, have regional monopolies on the road net. I'd say that it is much the same with roads as telecom. Where the population density is high, things are better, where it is low, things are worse.

said by NormanS :

That is not a loan.
But the federal government does not build "last mile" connections to their freeway network. You are speaking of federal money. The road analogy would be for the federal government to operate the backbones.
Who will build and maintain the "last mile" connections? That is where the greatest expense lies. The cost of FTTH, including the cost of the ONT on each premises.
The various states, and counties within those states, have regional monopolies on the road net. I'd say that it is much the same with roads as telecom. Where the population density is high, things are better, where it is low, things are worse.

said by NormanS :

For one thing, the backbone already exists. The government can just expropriate it; nationalization of the backbone, if you will. Use eminent domain. For another thing, the "last mile" will be no cheaper when built by some quasi private corporation than it is by private industry. "Non-profit"? Hah. The USPS is not "non-profit". Amtrak is not "non-profit". This "non-profit" corporation would need some way to cover cost of maintenance, and addition, as the population grows.

Whether the government builds the last mile, or Verizon, the cost won't be cheap, and the price to the consumer will be high; doubly so. The taxes needed for this "loan" (government loans were a bad idea when Chrysler Corp. got one; this one won't be any better. And Chrysler Corp. builds cars, not highways!) The fees for whatever services utilize the network.

Face it, this is just a "Pie-in-the-Sky" pipe dream. An extra $10 per month in taxes, with a $150 per month bill, or an extra $150 per month in taxes with a $10 per month bill. It will not be cheaper than private industry. It never is.

I wouldn't use it at $150 per month. I would at $10 per month, knowing that my tax money is already paying for it, so I might as well; but I would keep up the bitching about the taxes.

said by XBL2009 :

I've seen other countries get their broadband act together and move way past what United States has. The Rich corporations are purposely blocking progress while milking older technology. The consumer loses here.

The cost would not be that high since Verizon is spending 20 billion for their region so figure 100 to 150 billion which would be paid back over the years. Figure 40 years and 150 million users paying say $25 a month. I'd pay $25 a month for 100 megabit connection.

Also Chrysler Corp paid back the loan faster then the terms required.

said by NormanS :

Yep. Those greedy capitalists. Get rid of the capitalist system, and replace it with government run everything; from clothing, to housing to...you name it. Socialism is the only way to go!


Yes but there is no capitalism when it comes to broadband now. You have cable or DSL if your very lucky and a lot of people are still stuck with dialup. The problem is that the telcoms aren't being pushed to release the technology that already existed and has existed for a long time. It was Covad that pushed the Bells to start offering DSL. The Bells did not want to because T1 was making them a bundle of money. DSL was around for 20 years and Covad began building a network in 96 after the new legislation force the Bells to compete and open their networks.

The reason I propose a non profit company to run a National Fiber network with money loaned from the feds is because they can do it without worry about investors and because the investment is enormous.
Which doesn't make it a good idea. There was no Constitutional basis for that government loan. The U.S. government is not in the lending business. Oh. Wait, The U.S. Constitution is a "Living Document"; i.e., it means whatever the administration of the day says that it means. Sorts like Humpty Dumpty, you know.

The trouble is, people won't pay a lot for there broadband connection. Depending upon their incomes, people won't pay more than about $20 per month at the low end of income range to $75 per month at the high end. Unless their average annual GAI exceeds $100,000 per year, or so.

The private companies need an ROI now, so they can show the investors that they are profitable. But rebuilding the infrastructure to provide 100mbits/sec to the home to 80% of the population is out of the reach of most companies. Verizon is bypassing a lot of their customers to bring FIOS to the home. And their investors are taking a close, hard look at that expenditure.

So the answer is to place a tax burden on the people to get HSI? Again, if I had to pay $150 per month to get HSI, I would do without. It isn't that we are lagging because nobody is doing anything, it is that we are lagging because nobody is willing to pay the per capita cost of immediate overbuild of the existing technology.

In the end, what are you actually doing with all of that bandwidth that you need to have it all yesterday? If HSI cost me $150 per month, I'd spend a lot less time in front of my computer, and a lot more time down at the range, burning up ammunition.

said by XBL2009 :

Right now Fios doesn't cost $150 so I don't know why you keep coming up with that price. I don't recall but I think the lower tiers cost $40.

said by NormanS :

Verizon isn't deploying FIOS universally, only where they can put it in at low enough cost to not have to charge $150. They are bypassing a lot more customers than they are laying fiber to because they can't deploy FIOS to everybody at a low cost.

Capitalism, the way by which companies raise operating capital. Investors put money into a project with the expectation of a R.O.I. Comcast, AT&T, and some others are investor owned.

For those who worry about the government mucking around in their lives, government funding of anything is suspect.