dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
28
share rss forum feed


elios

join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO

1 edit
reply to tlylework

Re: Pond scum subspecies

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


silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA

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.



NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC

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

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA

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.



NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
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

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA

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.


34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

1 recommendation

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.

34764170

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?

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA

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.


silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to 34764170

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.


34764170

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.

34764170

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.

Austinloop

join:2001-08-19
Austin, TX
kudos:1

1 recommendation

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.



morbo
Complete 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 34764170

if you think every other ISP in the world isnt selling user data your dead wrong


silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to 34764170

They are deploying fiber because it would be idiotic to deploy copper.


silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to 34764170

You misinterpreted my comment. I was talking about upstream bandwidth the entire time.


silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to elios

My ISP isn't. I would know about it if they did.



elios

join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO

thats nice bet your ass AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and the other big ones are


silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA

Highly possible.



MovieLover76

join:2009-09-11
kudos:1
reply to NormanS

Living in NJ, even before Sandy I can say that downed wires are extremely common, in CA I'm sure you don't have as many powerful storms as we do in NJ.

Some areas in NJ have underground wires, normally the richer areas, they don't lose power or phone as often as the areas served by poles, and even when they do, the power comes back much faster, because the problem is centralized, normally it's the transformer itself, downed lines take much longer and are more costly to fix.

In NJ we've always wanted underground wires, even more so since Sandy.
Does it cost more, yes obviously. But in some areas it really would make much more sense in the long run.



tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:9
Reviews:
·G4 Communications
·Fairpoint Commun..
·Hollis Hosting
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.

Saving money is not irrelevant, lowering infrastructure cost goes a long way to increasing penetration. Aerial infrastructure is enough of an eyesore already, I don't want separate poles for: power, phone, Cable, Etc.

said by silbaco:

Every time a storm blows in you have to role trucks to fix the downed lines. They should just do it right the first time and put the cables in the ground.

I respectfully disagree. Here in NH most utilities are above ground. In the thirty years we have lived here have lost power dozens of times, sometimes for a week on end. We have never once lost phone service. When a tree falls on aerial service the power cables break the fall so tree gets hung up and usually does not sever cable or phone service.

Same thing in a traffic accident. Down pole may short out power conductors but communication cables are rarely damaged.

Underground service costs about 10X what aerial does and it is not immune to disruption: frost heaves and errant backhoes play havoc with underground service. In addition it is much harder to find and repair underground faults.

If I had my druthers we would implement some type of wholesale fiber first-mile implementation. Various service providers would rent strands or lambdas (colors) to deliver end user service. Primary and secondary power would be at the top of the pole, multi-fiber cable underneath and all the existing legacy cable, phone, cable, fire alarm, etal removed.

In dense urban environments underground utilities make sense but that is the exception not the rule. If you want to pay the premium that is fine but it should not be the norm due to expense.

By way of example our house is 600 feet off the road. When we built it decided to go aerial for the first 400 feet then underground for the last couple of hundred. Neither has been a problem.

/tom


tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:9
Reviews:
·G4 Communications
·Fairpoint Commun..
·Hollis Hosting
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.

Saving money is not irrelevant, lowering infrastructure cost goes a long way to increasing penetration. Aerial infrastructure is enough of an eyesore already, I don't want separate poles for: power, phone, Cable, Etc.

said by silbaco:

Every time a storm blows in you have to role trucks to fix the downed lines. They should just do it right the first time and put the cables in the ground.

I respectfully disagree. Here in NH most utilities are above ground. In the thirty years we have lived here have lost power dozens of times, sometimes for a week on end. We have never once lost phone service. When a tree falls on aerial service the power cables break the fall so tree gets hung up and usually does not sever cable or phone service.

Same thing in a traffic accident. Down pole may short out power conductors but communication cables are rarely damaged.

Underground service costs about 10X what aerial does and it is not immune to disruption: frost heaves and errant backhoes play havoc with underground service. In addition it is much harder to find and repair underground faults.

If I had my druthers we would implement some type of wholesale fiber first-mile implementation. Various service providers would rent strands or lambdas (colors) to deliver end user service. Primary and secondary power would be at the top of the pole, multi-fiber cable underneath and all the existing legacy cable, phone, cable, fire alarm, etal removed.

In dense urban environments underground utilities make sense but that is the exception not the rule. If you want to pay the premium that is fine but it should not be the norm due to expense.

/tom


PaulHikeS2

join:2003-03-06
Fitchburg, MA

1 edit
reply to elios

Post withdrawn


silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to tschmidt

I have never seen phone lines placed above ground, so I can't comment on that. But I have seen ice bring down power and fiber.


sticks435

join:2004-05-25
Kansas City, MO
reply to NormanS

said by NormanS:

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.

That's because you live in one of the most temperate climates in the United States, not Tornado Alley. Your storms are probably nothing compared to what we get here.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to elios

said by elios:

if you think every other ISP in the world isnt selling user data your dead wrong

Doesn't change what I said. The connection is subsidized. That isn't the case for other ISPs and even if the other ISPs are selling your data they're not going to pass any savings on to you the customer as a result of doing so.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to silbaco

said by silbaco:

You misinterpreted my comment. I was talking about upstream bandwidth the entire time.

No, I did not.


Simba7
I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT
reply to 34764170

said by 34764170:

Yes, they're rolling out an all fibre network but they're not thinking long term.

Um.. Yes they are. Copper can't push the speeds Fiber can. Copper has limits. Fiber, technically, does not.

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to morbo

Fixing lines is costly. Replacing poles is even more costly. As the poles continue to age in many places, companies are being reminded how stupid it was not to bury the cables.