 WiseOldNerdDe gustibus non est disputandumPremium
join:2001-11-25
Phoenix, AZ | Pond scum subspecies All elected politicians are pond scum and their political appointments are a even scummier subset.
--
My perception is REALITY |
|
| 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. |
|
| 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 | reply 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 |
|
| 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. |
|
 NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9
 ·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to tlylework
said by tlylework :I currently pay $55/month for 18mb uverse connection.
I pay only $19.98/month for 15 Mbps ...
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply 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?
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
| 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. |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| 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.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
| 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. |
|
|
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | reply 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. |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | reply 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? |
|
 keithpsPremium
join:2002-06-26
Soddy Daisy, TN | reply to NormanS
I pay only $69 for 100/100Mbps... |
|
| reply to brad
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. |
|
| reply to brad
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. |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
1 edit | 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. |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | reply 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. |
|
Reviews:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply 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. |
|
 morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | reply 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 | reply to brad
if you think every other ISP in the world isnt selling user data your dead wrong |
|
