 bgraham
join:2001-03-15
Smithtown, NY Reviews:
 ·Verizon VoiceWing
 ·Verizon FiOS
·VOIPo
1 edit | I Think Utilities are Underground. I left the UK many years ago, but go back regularly. If I remember correctly all utilities are buried under ground. This must make it very difficult to upgrade a complete network. Unlike here in the USA where they just run fiber along poles and poke another hole in the side of the house.
Also homes are almost exclusively brick or block construction. Another difficulty when running wires inside homes. | |
|
 |  SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA | Re: I Think Utilities are Underground. Conduit? | |
|
| | TheMGPremium
join:2007-09-04
Canada
kudos:1 | Re: I Think Utilities are Underground. Bingo! Just slide the cables in! | |
|
|  Anonymous_AnonymousPremium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
kudos:2
 ·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
·Time Warner VOIP
| said by bgraham:I left the UK many years ago, but go back regularly. If I remember correctly all utilities are buried under ground. This must make it very difficult to upgrade a complete network. Unlike here in the USA where they just run fiber along poles and poke another hole in the side of the house. Also homes are almost exclusively brick or block construction. Another difficulty when running wires inside homes. not true some places have underground | |
|
|
| | | Re: Deployment costs urban vs rural very interesting said by Romney2012:Urban deployment at today's exchange rate is about $690/household. Rural deployment is about $3000/household. Both are amounts that could easily be recouped in a five to ten year time frame, ergo, no real good reason not to deploy, unless you consider the whiny investors with the casino-mentality about the market a good reason. I'm pretty sure no CEO or President wants to hear them complaining constantly about how the sky is falling because their short term gains are down a couple of points.
--
---
Eleven years of carrying The Clue Bat... | |
|
| |  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Re: Deployment costs urban vs rural very interesting said by NetAdmin1:said by Romney2012:Urban deployment at today's exchange rate is about $690/household. Rural deployment is about $3000/household. Both are amounts that could easily be recouped in a five to ten year time frame, ergo, no real good reason not to deploy, unless you consider the whiny investors with the casino-mentality about the market a good reason. I'm pretty sure no CEO or President wants to hear them complaining constantly about how the sky is falling because their short term gains are down a couple of points. Without the "whiny" investors, the companies wouldn't have any money to fund improvements. Somehow a company has to provide returns to investors while also doing upgrades. That is why these large scale improvement projects are spread over many years and not done in shorter timeframes as technology lovers and special interest groups desire.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? | |
|
| | | | | Re: Deployment costs urban vs rural very interesting said by Romney2012:Without the "whiny" investors, the companies wouldn't have any money to fund improvements. You misread my statement. "Whiny investors with the casino-mentality," you know, the morons who invest very short term, and freak when one quarter's results come up short of estimates. These folks are very different from long term investors in that they refuse to acknowledge the big picture, demand that company's reinvest as little as possible and consider short terms gains more important than long term stability and sustainable business plans.
Long term investors with a clue welcome reinvestment in a company and are willing to take short term hits in returns for long term growth.
--
---
Eleven years of carrying The Clue Bat... | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Deployment costs urban vs rural very interesting The problem is, they're all buying chips (stock) from the same house. That makes the long term investor more likely to dump the stock with the wild price fluctations. It then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy on why not to invest!
You'd almost need a long term bond issue/that carries a high yield, but even that would need the stability of its common stock.
--
The "Lifetime" channel is responsible for 83% of all divorces...Robert Ginty | |
|
| | NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
 ·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by NetAdmin1:Both are amounts that could easily be recouped in a five to ten year time frame, ergo, no real good reason not to deploy... You will need two things that we don't have:
• Investors with a long term mentality (which, of course, you are denigrating).
• A government with a long term mentality; which means no taxes on the revenues collected for the FTTH services until after the payoff. Can you see government not touching those revenues for five to ten years? I can't.
Oh, and one other thing: Both the cableco and the telco will be expected to build out; but you can't expect the homeowner to use both, so some of the homes won't be paying off for the build out.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
| | | | | Re: Deployment costs urban vs rural very interesting said by NormanS:Investors with a long term mentality (which, of course, you are denigrating). I disagree with the parenthetical portion that statement. On the contrary, I was denigrating short-term investors who play the market like the horse races or the roulette wheel. Re-read my posts and you will see that I state that long term investors are what allow companies to invest back into themselves and promote continued growth and stability. Short term investors force companies to do the exact opposite by forcing them to focus on immediate returns and punishing companies that don't maximize immediate returns by delaying or avoiding reinvestment.
--
---
Eleven years of carrying The Clue Bat... | |
|
| | | | NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4
1 edit | Re: Deployment costs urban vs rural very interesting Of course. I knew what you meant, but I'm a "Muslim", after all! (Obama's slip of the tongue will actually embarrass the right, you know!)
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
pb2k
join:2005-05-30
Calgary, AB
kudos:1 | The currency coversions are wrong umm, GBP £28.8 billion dosn't equal US$40.9 Billion. | |
|
| TheMGPremium
join:2007-09-04
Canada
kudos:1 | Re: The currency coversions are wrong Lol it almost looks like they did the conversion from EUR->USD instead of GBP->USD | |
|
| Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | said by pb2k:umm, GBP £28.8 billion dosn't equal US$40.9 Billion. The correct conversion would be £28.8 billion to US$50.7 billion | |
|
| |  DspairlPremium
join:2004-06-09
Norwich, CT | Re: The currency coversions are wrong $50.9B now =) | |
|
| | why bother if no one wants it now go sue all the gamers and pirates you can find and see what and how many want highspeed afterwards | |
|
|  XBL2009------
join:2001-01-03
Chicago, IL
·EarthLink
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: why bother if no one wants it said by chronoss2008:now go sue all the gamers and pirates you can find and see what and how many want highspeed afterwards People would flock to 100mbps if they could get it. | |
|
| | $40 Billion To Wire the UK With FTTH Canada is spending nothing. | |
|
| | | Re: $40 Billion To Wire the UK With FTTH said by Froggy :
Canada is spending nothing.
Hell, nor is At&t, qwest, only one is verzion and that footprint is small plus a hit or miss muni around. | |
|
XBL2009------
join:2001-01-03
Chicago, IL |  Just do it !
Just do it. | |
|
Reviews:
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
| small country, many options. sure, fiber should be the bulk of telecom infrastructure for both cable and telco providers. however, in a small country such as the uk, wireless broadband could easily cover much of the country with a comparably lower price tag.. so in places where infrastructure is not practical, wireless broadband via wimax or something similar can flood the area with coverage.
also, not all the uk's infrastructure is underground.. if you go onto any web map program and check out street views along highways... they have above ground poles as in other places as well as buried infrastructure. don't think that just because of wwii that the uk buries everything.. they don't, it's just not practical everywhere! | |
|
| | Seems like a fair cost considering what the UK has already spent in wiring for CCTV/network cameras every few hundred feet of motorway and in every obscure village and town center. Kinda freaked me out when I was there last month. | |
|
|
|
Deployment costs urban vs rural very interesting
