 |  | | | | 
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs:
 ·T-Mobile US
 ·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | Re: People in rural areas aren't getting screwed said by sharksfan3  :said by tiger72 :They chose to live out there where it costs far more to deliver EVERYTHING: food, fuel, and broadband. By your logic the largest cities in the country are the cheapest places to live... Let me rephrase then. The cost to the telco to set up a single tower for WiMax in a city is equal to the cost for a telco to set up single tower near some town out in rural Kansas. Because of population density, however, the number of potential subscribers in the city make it a worthwhile investment because they have exponentially higher odds of seeing a return on that investment.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara | |
| | | | | | | | 
wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·BroadVoice
| said by tiger72 :Let me rephrase then. The cost to the telco to set up a single tower for WiMax in a city is equal to the cost for a telco to set up single tower near some town out in rural Kansas. Well, not really. The cost of the wireless equipment is the same, but nothing else is. In rural areas you can literally erect a 200 foot tower to put your equipment on. In cities, you need to negotiate roof rights with each building you want to place equipment on. Some buildings charge between a few hundred dollars per month, all the way up to to a few thousand dollars per month, for a 1 foot by 2 foot (if you are lucky!) space. Power costs are different, permit costs are different, bandwidth costs are different, its truly an apples to (Japanese) square watermelons comparison. Furthermore, you might not even use the same radios in an urban environment, meaning you cant even compare that.
--
Весна прибыла | |
| | | | | Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA | Re: People in rural areas aren't getting screwed Sure you can compare different radio types. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | brandpc
join:2003-08-25
Canton, CT | Re: People in rural areas aren't getting screwed Well... what qualifies it as not being a good comparision?
You are comparing two different types of food.. seems logical to me. | |
| | | | | | | |
wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
·Verizon FIOS
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·RoadRunner Cable
·BroadVoice
| Re: People in rural areas aren't getting screwed said by brandpc :Well... what qualifies it as not being a good comparision? You are comparing two different types of food.. seems logical to me. But thats just the point. A comparison by definition is the examining of two similar things to determine how they differ. It wouldnt make sense to compare to completely different things such as sushi and steak given that there is no common ground.
said by Merriam Webster Dictionary :
a: the representing of one thing or person as similar to or like another b: an examination of two or more items to establish similarities
--
Весна прибыла | |
| | Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA
·Comcast
 ·SONIC.NET
| said by tiger72 :They chose to live out there where it costs far more to deliver EVERYTHING: food, fuel, and broadband. Why does it come as some surprise every time a company says "it just doesn't make financial sense to deliver to sparsely populated, rural markets"? Urbanites pay more for dense-based rent, so they can pay less for services, and rural people pay more for services, so they can pay less for spacious rent. The Kingdom will let them have more space for less if they only pay more for their services.
Geographically, financially, and fairly, it makes perfect sense, and I don't want to circumvent that with income redistribution of any sort.
However, one place it doesn't make sense is technologically: radios in dense areas go less far because of congestion, and in rural areas go further because of lack of congestion. What is a cell phone to an urbanite could be a high bandwidth long distance backhaul to a ruralite. Those rural people could go ahead and build their own radio tower at their own house, and eventually use technology to link their home radio network to their neighbors so they could roam, and make their own cell networks and such. So, technologically, those ruralites could have a nice network if they wanted to. Probably never at the great efficiencies of the urbanites, though; to every ruralite who wants equal cost data service to what the urbanites pay, I tell them to pay the per-square-foot cost of what the urbanites pay for all of their space and all the other higher costs of urban dwelling (allow criminals to steal at the same rates, pay the same taxes for city social services, etc. etc. etc.). And if not that, make them fully subsidize urban dwelling to the point it costs as little per square foot as rural dwelling, as part of the plan to bring them the same cost data service as the urban people. THEN let's see what they have to say about the broadband penetration cost of rural America. | |
| | | 
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: Cue demand for expansion of USF charges to pay for rural 4G quote:
And now cue all the whining and demands for government action and expansion of the Dept of Agriculture broadband initiatives and the FCC's USF funds.
As opposed to continued government inaction and the traditional corruption of the proven-to-be-utterly dysfunctional slush fund that is the USF?
Yes, god forbid.  | |
| 
bobgwen
join:2001-07-07
Bartow, FL
·Comcast
| 4g for rural? I don't think the folks that live in rural areas are clamoring for 4g anytime soon. They are too busy growing your food that you eat and your citrus for the juices that you drink to be bothered by 4g. I live in a rural area and I am just glad to get cell phone service and internet on my t-mobile phone. It is fast enough, thank you. I can't imagine those truck drivers delivering citrus to the factories or the field workers bent over all day long are wondering anything about it at all. | |
| 
n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
·Optimum Online
| Not Good for T-Mobile I am a T-Mobile subscriber but it definitely does not look good for them. Short of partnering with the cable companies, they will not get a break on the backhauls they need to compete.
On top of that, only yesterday did they finally turn 3G on in limited areas and even that is a limited version of 3G, not the HSDPA implementation. LTE is already on the map and I suspect TMO will be left in the dust. At this point, the best thing they can do is keep prices low so that they can attract people who do not need all the glitz and glitter of the "big boys".
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
| | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Re: Not Good for T-Mobile said by n2jtx :I am a T-Mobile subscriber but it definitely does not look good for them. Short of partnering with the cable companies, they will not get a break on the backhauls they need to compete. On top of that, only yesterday did they finally turn 3G on in limited areas and even that is a limited version of 3G, not the HSDPA implementation. LTE is already on the map and I suspect TMO will be left in the dust. At this point, the best thing they can do is keep prices low so that they can attract people who do not need all the glitz and glitter of the "big boys". As far as I read, HSPDA is on, but there are no HSDPA AWS 1700 phones available to the public, so your stuck with older "UMTS" Release 4 handsets which only goto 384 kbps.
Also Sprint is the cellphone carrier who partners with cable companies for various purposes.
Here is an example. »cellularpcs.com/gallery/displayi···&pos=221
Problem is cable companies eventually realized that cellphone towers/cells need symmetrical bandwidth, and that they (cable companies) would rather use the limited bandwidth on the coax for their own purposes (PPV, DOCSIS, VOD control channels, etc) rather than lease it out. Now renting fiber to cell providers is a different story, since fiber bandwidth shouldn't be related to coax bandwidth unless the cable companies used a really stupid protocol over the fiber that prevents CWDM/DWDM. Another reason I think cell carriers are hesitant to go with cable company fiber backhaul is that cable companies aren't in the business of 9 fives reliability and executives **** their pants when they hear something doesn't come with 9 fives, even though the telcos can decide its cheaper to do the repair 9 to 5 over a couple days and refund that month's service fee than it is the roll a couple trucks at 1 AM in the morning. | |
| | | 
packetscan
Premium
join:2004-10-19
Bridgeport, CT
clubs:
·Optimum Online
| No Backhaul, hmm i wonder why No backhaul's to find.. That's because the Telcos that own the networks Especially (last mile) are a monopoly. Until that is fixed we are going to continue to be taken advantage of as customers. You can Thank Martin and the FCC for this. Well really you want to thank BUSH, he Appointed this idiot.
--
Reach out and Tap someone! | |
| |
bobgwen
join:2001-07-07
Bartow, FL
·Comcast
1 edit | Re: No Backhaul, hmm i wonder why The various cell companies are free to run their own fiber to all their cell sites if they want. Run them back to a c.o. into an interconnect space and then a fiber connection to their fiber that goes to their switch. Or run the fiber directly to their local switch. It ain't the local phone companies stopping them at all.
I might want to add that it is the cell companies that do the ordering for whatever type of circuit they want connecting their cell towers, be it a T-1(s) or fiber. | |
| | | 
superdog
I Need A Drink
Premium,MVM
join:2001-07-13
Lebanon, PA
| Re: No Backhaul, hmm i wonder why Hmmm...Lets see, cell phone CO doesn't know how to use a few radios to backhaul bandwidth?. You don't need copper with microwave systems. For the cost of stringing fiber or paying for a DS3 for one year, you could build a few towers, hang a few radios and you are done.
No matter how rural you are, a few hops and you are near almost any major CO that has lots of options for connectivity. We do it all the time, why can't they?. I know there are guys on their payroll a LOT smarter than I am?. 
--
»www.wavecrazy.net Join WISPA today! »www.wispa.org/ | |
| | | 
tc1uscg
join:2005-03-09
Saint Clair Shores, MI
| said by bobgwen :The various cell companies are free to run their own fiber to all their cell sites if they want. Run them back to a c.o. into an interconnect space and then a fiber connection to their fiber that goes to their switch. Or run the fiber directly to their local switch. It ain't the local phone companies stopping them at all. I might want to add that it is the cell companies that do the ordering for whatever type of circuit they want connecting their cell towers, be it a T-1(s) or fiber. 1. MAN ring. However, you still need to get fiber to the tower.
2. Wrong. Most towers have copper for the last mile. Very few have DS3's. Most have T1's and unless the provider for the last mile has 28 T1's to form a DS3, it's not going to happen. Golden sites, maybe. Standard tower, NFW..  | |
| | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| I seriously doubt the telcos are content to sit back and not grow their revenue via next gen wireless. Considering the telcos are apparently the ones having problems with backhauls and the limited capacities of existing circuits, your argument blaming the telcos doesn't hold much water IMO. | |
| | EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA
| said by packetscan :No backhaul's to find.. That's because the Telcos that own the networks Especially (last mile) are a monopoly. Until that is fixed we are going to continue to be taken advantage of as customers. You can Thank Martin and the FCC for this. Well really you want to thank BUSH, he Appointed this idiot. What does backhaul have to do with the residential last mile? What's being talked about here is an enterprise level service, and would never be opened up by the FCC or anyone as far as I know. | |
| | 
HEDP
join:2008-04-27
Miami, FL
1 edit | ! Makes me wonder if the whole net neutrality debate had somehow an objective to buy more time for the companies to upgrade their networks while still deploying 4G services as a means of prioritizing traffic between wireless and land.
This will be a massive undertaking, even with microwave equipment. No company no matter it's resources will have a hard time deploying 4G. This could of as aa reason for Verizon to introduce FIOS, because those very same fiber links could be the backhaul for their wireless services.
The limitation of copper is also little with DOCSIS. The 4G Utopia is occuring at a time when the economy is not as stable as it used to be.
This will cost companies trillions of dollars to just to upgrade to 4G, but this upgrade is probably the most significant as well.
P.S Posting this while traveling on a bus at 85mph from 29 Palms, CA to Los Angeles, CA on my Sprint EVDO connection with is considered 3G technology. A nice 137KB/sec steady 75ms latency stream as I download a few updates. | |
| | xfer_rdy
join:2007-12-13
Louisville, CO
·Sprint Broadband D..
| Copper Backhauls Delaying 4G Utopia -Are they on Crack ? Am I hearing this correctly ? Doesn't sprint own the largest reserve of dark fibre in the US ?
There is a company shipping a "40gbps DWDM per optical fibre" solution today. Each fibre backhaul capacity can support 20,000 EVDO connections at maximum bandwidth (2mbps). Place 16 fibre optic cables in a bundle, 12 download 4 for up, each bundle handles 240,000 EVDO connection operating at maximum bandwith.
Who are they kidding ? Sprint is lucky their investors and television stock advisers don't have a clue what's going on. | |
| | | |
|
|
Copper Backhauls Delaying 4G Utopia
Cue demand for expansion of USF charges to pay for rural 4G