FCC Study: $62 Billion To Bring FTTH To The Unserved $23.5 billion to bring DSL and fixed wireless to the unserved Buried under the noise surrounding the FCC's plan to reclassify (somewhat) broadband carriers yesterday was a new FCC report (pdf, via Telecompetitor) that attempts to put a price tag on how much it would cost to deliver broadband of at least 4 Mbps to the nation's 14 million estimated unserved citizens. According to the report, it would cost $23.5 billion to deliver the service using DSL and fixed wireless -- and $62 billion to deploy fiber to the home. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act directed the FCC to conduct the study. Of course that 14 million number may or may not be right, given that broadband mapping remains incomplete (and that's being very generous) in most markets.
|
 iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Over $1000 per customer? 23.5 / 14 > 1.5 thousand dollars per customer. Which is rather ridiculous. Just sayin'. | |
|  | zed260Premium
join:2007-09-30
Cleveland, TN
kudos:1 | Re: Over $1000 per customer? seems a bit to low actuly i think its probably closer to 2k once you see how much truble it is thats pretty good | |
| | | jophanPremium
join:2009-07-12
Jenkintown, PA | Re: Over $1000 per customer? Over $1000 is easy. You get there even in the urban/suburban Verizon territory. I'm surprised it isn't more like $3-4000.
(Verizon's public numbers: $23 B to pass 19 M customers and install to about 20-25% of them.) | |
| | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: Over $1000 per customer? That's for fiber. We're talking copper and wireless. LOTS cheaper than fiber. | |
|
| | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | If you're using expensive, outdated equipment, maybe. However remote DSLAMs and wireless CPEs are cheap nowadays. Certainly not $1500 on average per customer. If they were then most WISPS wouldn't exist. | |
|
| talz13
join:2006-03-15
Avon Lake, OH | I would totally pay a one-time fee of $1500 to get my house wired for fiber service, if the resulting service would be fast and inexpensive. | |
| | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: Over $1000 per customer? The $1500 service charge here is for DSL or wireless though. | |
| | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Kudos! We need more folks like you who are willing to pay for it. I'm tired of the many bending over for the few. There are 300M people and 14M are under served. That's not quite 5%. In good economic years, 5% of the population is unemployed. If we're willing to accept those figures for something several magnitudes more important, why are we looking to spend money the government clearly doesn't have and will never have? Our government is $11,400,000,000,000 in debt. For a bit-head perspective, that's 11.4 terabytes$. | |
| | | |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
1 edit | Re: Over $1000 per customer? I seriously doubt the "underserved" is limited to just 14M. | |
| | | | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Re: Over $1000 per customer? 14%? Unless I misread the article, it's 14 million underserved. | |
|
|  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by iansltx:23.5 / 14 > 1.5 thousand dollars per customer. Which is rather ridiculous. Just sayin'. And if those people pay an average of $40 a month that money is made back in 3 years. | |
| | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: Over $1000 per customer? No it isn't. There's this lovely thing called operating expenses, so that money is made back over a much longer term. Or you raise rates to $60 per month and make it back in 3 years. | |
| | |  bencPremium
join:2007-06-17
Glen Carbon, IL
 ·Charter
| Unfortunately, it's not that simple.
$40/mo. * (12 months/year) * (3 years) = $1,440 .
There do exist costs involved in operating the network, on top of just building it. Any carrier that would lease the network would have costs of its own. If each carrier leased the network at $40/customer/month, then yes you be correct. But then, the carrier would have to charge above and beyond that for each customer, or else the carrier will have a negative profit and thus go out of business.
If the carrier purchases their own equipment, the costs of that would have to be made back as well. Don't forget also that there will be ongoing costs, such as employees who keep the network operational. In the end, the carrier would still likely have to charge at least $80/mo. to customer (just guessing here) to provide the Internet access, and that's assuming a 100% uptake rate (every customer who can get the service, does). Although if the alternatives are satellite, dial-up, and T1, then $80 or even $100 doesn't sound too bad.
So let's try something else. 10 years to payback, instead of 3.
$1,500 / 120 months = $12.50 / mo.
With that figure, the carrier would be able to charge rates that are quite a bit lower than $80/mo., and still be able to make a profit, pay for it's own equipment, and so on.
To keep the math simple, I didn't consider maintenance costs, although those would have to be paid for as well. | |
| | | | | | Re: Over $1000 per customer? What in the world makes you think they'd have to lease the network for $40/customer/month? What kind of massively inflated numbers are those? Jeez. | |
| | | | | bencPremium
join:2007-06-17
Glen Carbon, IL Reviews:
·Charter
| Re: Over $1000 per customer? said by sonicmerlin:What in the world makes you think they'd have to lease the network for $40/customer/month? What kind of massively inflated numbers are those? Jeez. I didn't say or think that. That was actually my point. While BF69 did have the right idea, he really oversimplified the math. So I merely pointed out some things that he may have overlooked. Did you notice the second part where I suggested that the payback period would be 10 years, instead of 3? That figure sounds a lot more reasonable. At that rate, a carrier could charge a customer $50 a month and they would still be able to make a profit. | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Over $1000 per customer? said by benc:said by sonicmerlin:What in the world makes you think they'd have to lease the network for $40/customer/month? What kind of massively inflated numbers are those? Jeez. I didn't say or think that. That was actually my point. While BF69 did have the right idea, he really oversimplified the math. So I merely pointed out some things that he may have overlooked. Did you notice the second part where I suggested that the payback period would be 10 years, instead of 3? That figure sounds a lot more reasonable. At that rate, a carrier could charge a customer $50 a month and they would still be able to make a profit. Here's a quote from an Australian at Ars:
"The government owned company will be structured with a 15 year debt payback and make a modest return of 6% per annum. The construction phase will also provide a lot of stimulus and employment to the economy. It will have a net positive benefit to the overall economy." | |
| | | | | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by benc:said by sonicmerlin:What in the world makes you think they'd have to lease the network for $40/customer/month? What kind of massively inflated numbers are those? Jeez. I didn't say or think that. That was actually my point. While BF69 did have the right idea, he really oversimplified the math. So I merely pointed out some things that he may have overlooked. Did you notice the second part where I suggested that the payback period would be 10 years, instead of 3? That figure sounds a lot more reasonable. At that rate, a carrier could charge a customer $50 a month and they would still be able to make a profit. yeah I simplified it because this is a messageboard not a place for writting novels. But if you insist on an expansion of my point.
I'm sure it was quite expensive 70, 80, 90 years ago to provide phone and electrical service to rural areas. Even if the payback period was 25 years those elctrical and phone companies have had 50, 60 or more years of nice profits. How many TRILLIONS of dollars in profits have been made in the last 50, 60, 70 years by these companies just from these rural areas? The problem is today people are too focused on the NOW and can't see the bigger picture. | |
| | | | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:1 | Re: Over $1000 per customer? The phone company used to be a monopoly with guaranteed profits. Should we return to that so that investors have more confidence in long term returns? | |
|
| | | | That's if all of them pay $40 a month, many of them won't, many more will get the service on a promotional rate. So BEST case scenario is after 3 years a company gets an opportunity to start making money, that's a terrible plan... | |
|
 camaro92Question everythingPremium
join:2008-04-05
Westfield, MA
·Comcast
| One good thing about Ma At least we have a decent map of the state to go off of | |
| | | How much to wire the entire population Seriously, I would like a study to be commissioned to determine how much it would cost to wire up every apartment complex, house, farm, double-wide, high-rise, school and library to fiber.
How much would that be? 500 billion? 1 trillion? Isn't that worth it? How much could the government make BACK by leasing or selling the lines to multiple carriers so they can compete on it?
Fiber to every residence in america would mean voice (VoIP), video (IPTV), data (Internet) to every residence. They could literally replace all copper based services (POTS, DSL, T-Carrier access) with a much faster and less problematic back haul. OTA could even go away conceivably.
In a perfect world, the public networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, PBS, etc) could be combined with local phone access and 1mbps internet for free or cheap as a "Lifeline" service. That way public safety would still be in place without the use of OTA or POTS.
It can be done, just depends on how much. | |
| |  atuarreHere come the drumsPremium
join:2004-02-14
College Station, TX | Re: How much to wire the entire population They don't want to compete. That is just it. The carriers are against anything that would be in the best interests of the consumer. | |
| | |  ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4 | Re: How much to wire the entire population said by atuarre: The carriers are against anything that would be in the best interests of the consumer. No. That is inaccurate. They are against anything that would hurt their profits. And that isn't the same thing as what you said.
--
Are you happy with your rep in Washington, DC? | |
| | | | | | Re: How much to wire the entire population Sometimes it is. Sometimes it ain't. | |
| | | | | | It's not always the same thing.
But it usually is. | |
|
| elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA Reviews:
 ·SONIC.NET
·RoadRunner Cable
| And how exactly do you propose to pay for this trillion dollar giveaway?
We don't need to wire the whole country with fiber. Most people can move if faster broadband is so important to them. Wireless ISPs and coops work in rural settings; you'll just to have accept that rural broadband will cost more and perform less. | |
| | | Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: How much to wire the entire population And how exactly do you propose to pay for this trillion dollar giveaway? Slash just 100 of our 850 military bases, and stop the practice of "nation building"? Not to veer too far off topic, but how many U.S. national fiber networks would the money we paid into Iraq pay for? You could probably pay for five national fiber networks just off of the last year's political pork. All of which taxpayers paid for without the same kind of face-fanning that happens when people propose actually investing taxpayer money into our broadband infrastructure. | |
| | | | | | Re: How much to wire the entire population Thank you! I've said the same thing before all the money could hook us up with FTTH. | |
| | | |  P NessYou'Ve Forgotten 9-11 AlreadyPremium
join:2001-08-29
way way out | said by Karl Bode:And how exactly do you propose to pay for this trillion dollar giveaway? Slash just 100 of our 850 military bases, and stop the practice of "nation building"? Not to veer too far off topic, but how many U.S. national fiber networks would the money we paid into Iraq pay for? You could probably pay for five national fiber networks just off of the last year's political pork. All of which taxpayers paid for without the same kind of face-fanning that happens when people propose actually investing taxpayer money into our broadband infrastructure. sure lets cut all these to pay for FIBER....
lets not put education, homeless, healthcare, cure for cancer, feed the hungry....etc first....
the investment in FIBER to the home would not generate the returns.
--
 | |
| | | | |  neowulf
join:2000-10-20
Port Orange, FL | Re: How much to wire the entire population I think Karl's point is valid. We spend trillions on bases, some of which are no longer needed but we still spend money on them that serves no interest to real defense, just a money sink.
You are right that we should put money into education, homeless, health-care, cures for diseases and make sure starving people in our country are feed before putting in a fiber network.
The investment in our military is also not generating any returns. But the amount of money that is wasted could do everything you mentioned plus bonuses such as a fiber network for all.
We would all be living a much better life if our military was scaled back to just defense, and not used to police the world. But that isn't the American way, we believe in a big military rather then all the things you mentioned. | |
| | | | | | | | Re: How much to wire the entire population Saying "The investment in our military is also not generating any returns." is short sighted.
Through the military budget, thousands (maybe millions) of people are being employed. Whether it is directly as armed soldiers and the like, working at defence contractors, or in R&D centers. Additionally, a secondary level of employment exists in the form of additional revenue being brought into companies that supply electronic parts an testing equipment, manufacturing machines (CNC's, milling machines, lathes, etc.), and all sort so other supplies. Looking all this, saying that it is not generating any returns is a little short sighted as the returns can be found in the economy, to start with. | |
|
| | | | | | quote:
the investment in FIBER to the home would not generate the returns.
That's simply not true. If you structure the payback on the system over a 10-20 year period, you not only stimulate the economy with a massive national construction project but generate a significant return on investment once debt is paid off. | |
| | | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | said by P Ness:sure lets cut all these to pay for FIBER.... lets not put education, homeless, healthcare, cure for cancer, feed the hungry....etc first.... the investment in FIBER to the home would not generate the returns. What do you do when the homeless want to be homeless? when being on welfare and off the books begging is an easier job than working? There will never be a cure for cancer, the same way there will never be a nuclear WW3, nobody funds cures, if you cure someone, you can't make more money off them. Feed the hungry? Food stamps and welfare already fix that.
K-12 education is hopelessly broken, $50/hr and pension for a person that never aspired higher than "liberal arts" in college, lowering the standard to increase graduation, never hold parents responsible for the kid never doing homework in 12 years. If public education worked, private schools wouldn't exist. If public school was as good as private, only an idiot would pay twice, once as property tax, other as private tuition, for the same education for their kid. Then the overpaid public teachers get the extra tuition a private school student paid in property taxes. Rewarding failure.
Fiber is the same investment roads, law enforcement, garbage pickup, etc is. | |
| | | | | |  TSWYOPremium
join:2003-05-03
Cheyenne, WY
·Optimum Online
·Bresnan Online
| Re: How much to wire the entire population You seriously don't know what many teachers make. Some states, such as Wyoming, can pay their teachers a decent wage, first year teacher makes around $40,000. In Ohio, like many other states, that same first year teacher will make $24,000.
I would say 70% of the failure in public schools are the parent(s) the other 20% are teachers, and the other 10% is straight up politics. You can fire the teachers (though sometimes a challenge) You cannot fire the parents. Politics... well... that Politics. | |
|
| | | | | Sorry, Karl, I would prefer the military bases to broadband. The nation building I can agree with. | |
| | | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by Karl Bode:And how exactly do you propose to pay for this trillion dollar giveaway? Slash just 100 of our 850 military bases, and stop the practice of "nation building"? No argument here - we could can certainly recoup a lot of money from our military budget and the off-balance-sheet war funding - but that would only reduce the deficit, not pay for new entitlements. | |
|
| | | | I don't totally agree with that. I live on a pretty good size farm on which a many of my irragation are having to run off satellite. And for some reason I find it hard to farm in the middle of the city but according to you and the rest of the people that live in cities we country folks don't deserve it even though in reality I probably have more use for internet than u do. I think it would be pretty forthe people that complains that the underserved don't need internet should have there internet restricted to only be able to have satellite and see how long they last. Imo | |
| | | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: How much to wire the entire population said by TylerCobb:I don't totally agree with that. I live on a pretty good size farm on which a many of my irragation are having to run off satellite. And for some reason I find it hard to farm in the middle of the city but according to you and the rest of the people that live in cities we country folks don't deserve it even though in reality I probably have more use for internet than u do. I think it would be pretty forthe people that complains that the underserved don't need internet should have there internet restricted to only be able to have satellite and see how long they last. Imo I don't believe we city folk ever suggested that you don't "deserve" broadband. You just don't deserve a subsidy for it.
If it costs $100+/month for a farm to have 144kbps IDSL, or wireless equivalent, then your business model should cover that. If you want fiber, and it costs $20k/drop (versus 2-4k/drop in the city), then you need to factor that in to your cost. If that means I pay an extra $.10/lb for Belgian Endive, so be it. | |
|
| | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Then why does every last place have telephone and mains power, yet no DSL or cable? If mains power and POTS was installed to a particular property and the property sits on a county plowed and maintained road, why can't it have fiber? | |
| | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by elray:And how exactly do you propose to pay for this trillion dollar giveaway? We don't need to wire the whole country with fiber. Most people can move if faster broadband is so important to them. yes and if they move then where they move will have an increase in popualtion which means increases in infrustcuture. Where does that money come from to pay for that infructure? YOU the taxpayer. And you icnreases taxes to pay for the increase infrustructure is going to be A LOT more than that the cost of providing people in theboonies with access to broadband.
Also your atttiude is the same one people like you had 75-100 years ago when they said "If electricity is so important let the rural people move to the city". Ask yourself this how much cheaper is your food now that it would be if farmers still didn't have access to electrcity and phone service and modern roads? | |
|
| bencPremium
join:2007-06-17
Glen Carbon, IL Reviews:
·Charter
| said by Philmatic:Seriously, I would like a study to be commissioned to determine how much it would cost to wire up every apartment complex, house, farm, double-wide, high-rise, school and library to fiber. How much would that be? 500 billion? 1 trillion? Isn't that worth it? How much could the government make BACK by leasing or selling the lines to multiple carriers so they can compete on it? Fiber to every residence in america would mean voice (VoIP), video (IPTV), data (Internet) to every residence. They could literally replace all copper based services (POTS, DSL, T-Carrier access) with a much faster and less problematic back haul. OTA could even go away conceivably. In a perfect world, the public networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, PBS, etc) could be combined with local phone access and 1mbps internet for free or cheap as a "Lifeline" service. That way public safety would still be in place without the use of OTA or POTS. It can be done, just depends on how much. I've often wondered about that too. I don't usually like the idea of involving government, but I don't see how else it's going to work. The government after all made rural electrification happen. If it wasn't for that, how long would rural customers have had to wait until they got electricity from the power company?
If, and hopefully when this happens, I would like to see the lines be leased "at cost" to multiple carriers. When I say "at cost," I mean just enough to make back the costs of building the network over maybe 30 years or so. Not "below cost," since that means other taxes will be needed to subsidize it, and not "above cost," since that means the government would then make a profit. | |
| |  tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3
·Comcast
| said by Philmatic:... How much would that be? 500 billion? 1 trillion? Isn't that worth it? Maybe, it depends what it's used for, and how it is paid back ( I don't wish to pay for some hillbilly wanker to download Porn at GB/second, on the other hand if it gives him/her a valid chance at a taxpaying career...)said by Philmatic:... How much could the government make BACK by leasing or selling the lines to multiple carriers so they can compete on it? Probably nothing, the Gov't isn't designed to or good at making money.. best /most optimsic outcome would be break even on the direct service costs, make up the capital cost on tax revenue. | |
| | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: How much to wire the entire population said by tshirt:said by Philmatic:... How much would that be? 500 billion? 1 trillion? Isn't that worth it? Maybe, it depends what it's used for, and how it is paid back ( I don't wish to pay for some hillbilly wanker to download Porn at GB/second, on the other hand if it gives him/her a valid chance at a taxpaying career...) said by Philmatic:... How much could the government make BACK by leasing or selling the lines to multiple carriers so they can compete on it? Probably nothing, the Gov't isn't designed to or good at making money.. best /most optimsic outcome would be break even on the direct service costs, make up the capital cost on tax revenue. Thats why the government is making BILLONS in interest on all the bailout loans that are being paid back by banks. | |
| | | |  tim_kButtons, Bows, Beamer, Shadow, KaseyPremium,VIP
join:2002-02-02
Stewartstown, PA
kudos:8
·Armstrong Zoom ..
| Re: How much to wire the entire population said by BF69:Thats why the government is making BILLONS in interest on all the bailout loans that are being paid back by banks. The government isn't making any money, the Fed is.
--
RIP my babies Buttons 1/15/94-2/9/07, Beamer 7/24/08, & Bows 12/17/94-10/11/09 | |
|
| | | said by Philmatic:Seriously, I would like a study to be commissioned to determine how much it would cost to wire up every apartment complex, house, farm, double-wide, high-rise, school and library to fiber. How much would that be? 500 billion? 1 trillion? Isn't that worth it? How much could the government make BACK by leasing or selling the lines to multiple carriers so they can compete on it? Fiber to every residence in america would mean voice (VoIP), video (IPTV), data (Internet) to every residence. They could literally replace all copper based services (POTS, DSL, T-Carrier access) with a much faster and less problematic back haul. OTA could even go away conceivably. In a perfect world, the public networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, PBS, etc) could be combined with local phone access and 1mbps internet for free or cheap as a "Lifeline" service. That way public safety would still be in place without the use of OTA or POTS. It can be done, just depends on how much. 62B / 14m ~4,500 per household. In 2008 there were 129m households '»quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html' tack on another 1mil for the 500k rate that we have been running the last 2 years, for 130m total. 4,500x 130 = 585B | |
| | BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN Reviews:
·Integra Telecom
 ·voip.ms
 ·T-Mobile US
1 edit | said by Philmatic:Seriously, I would like a study to be commissioned to determine how much it would cost to wire up every apartment complex, house, farm, double-wide, high-rise, school and library to fiber. How much would that be? 500 billion? 1 trillion? Isn't that worth it? How much could the government make BACK by leasing or selling the lines to multiple carriers so they can compete on it? Fiber to every residence in america would mean voice (VoIP), video (IPTV), data (Internet) to every residence. They could literally replace all copper based services (POTS, DSL, T-Carrier access) with a much faster and less problematic back haul. OTA could even go away conceivably. A lot of apartments and hi-rises (newer buildings) are already wired with Cat 5e or Cat 6. IMO, that's already sufficient for awhile, no need to replace those infrastructures with fiber.
What those buildings need is FTTB. From there, copper can handle the rest without much of a fuss. And yes, copper can still deliver video, data, and voice.
I think some people still think the fiber is this magical material that solves all of our problems. What you need to understand is the effectiveness of fiber, and that's when it's outdoors and used for long distances. Single family homes (suburbs) will obviously benefit from fiber. MDU environments can still utilize copper indoors but utilize fiber-to-the-building for proper service. So really, the more urban environments that have buildings already wired with Cat 5e or Cat 6, it should be very easy to get high speeds to everyone. | |
| | | | | Re: How much to wire the entire population said by BlueC:said by Philmatic:Seriously, I would like a study to be commissioned to determine how much it would cost to wire up every apartment complex, house, farm, double-wide, high-rise, school and library to fiber. How much would that be? 500 billion? 1 trillion? Isn't that worth it? How much could the government make BACK by leasing or selling the lines to multiple carriers so they can compete on it? Fiber to every residence in america would mean voice (VoIP), video (IPTV), data (Internet) to every residence. They could literally replace all copper based services (POTS, DSL, T-Carrier access) with a much faster and less problematic back haul. OTA could even go away conceivably. A lot of apartments and hi-rises (newer buildings) are already wired with Cat 5e or Cat 6. IMO, that's already sufficient for awhile, no need to replace those infrastructures with fiber. What those buildings need is FTTB. From there, copper can handle the rest without much of a fuss. And yes, copper can still deliver video, data, and voice. I think some people still think the fiber is this magical material that solves all of our problems. What you need to understand is the effectiveness of fiber, and that's when it's outdoors and used for long distances. Single family homes (suburbs) will obviously benefit from fiber. MDU environments can still utilize copper indoors but utilize fiber-to-the-building for proper service. So really, the more urban environments that have buildings already wired with Cat 5e or Cat 6, it should be very easy to get high speeds to everyone. That's why I specifically said "apartment complex". Every single apartment or condo unit doesn't need fiber, but Fiber to the building will still provide the needed infrastructure to provide IPTV, VoIP, and internet at sufficient speeds (100mbit now, 1gbit later). I don't care what's used inside the building (CAT6, MoCA, Powerline, WiMax), doesn't matter. | |
|
| DaveO
join:2001-09-05
Easley, SC | This is what the country needs to do if we want to stay competitive with other nations in our broadband Internet service. The government needs to build the "last mile" FTTH to every single home, school, or organization that wants it. They would partner with many privately owned ISPs to provide service. | |
|
| | well said previous poster fibre to everyone would save billions, what a ROI. Fibre is cheaper than copper. as copper dies it should be replaced with cheaper and better fibre. there is no point in laying new copper to rural areas, far better to do the job properly in the first place and stop protecting the obsolete copper cabal throttling the country. Same in the UK. to be a digital nation you need gigs now, not megs.
chris | |
| WhatNowPremium
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC | If you are going to do it If they are going to do it do the place the service to the less dense rural areas first so when they run out of money those areas will have it. In other words start at the ends and work in because those left out will have more options and more voices to get better service. I am not talking about that one house that is off the grid 20+ miles from the next house but maybe if they are on the electric grid or have POTS line then they get service. I recommend FTTH for them | |
| |  TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY | You can depend on one thing If there is big time federal money to install broadband in the United States the number of under served broadband people will go from 14 Million to something like 563.000.000.000.000 people.
They will be stringing fiber to dog houses.
--
I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's.
- Mark Twain in Eruption | |
| | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Re: You can depend on one thing said by Transmaster:They will be stringing fiber to dog houses. So exactly which utility company will be placing poles outside their easement to bring fiber to my dog's house? | |
| | | | TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY | Re: You can depend on one thing Poles? no way, underground cables  | |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| government plan the federal government underwrote the first buildout upon which primarily telcos benefitted from in the first wave. then the cable companies jumped on the bandwagon. the third wave is a morphing wireless industry which constantly has new minority players, mvnos and partnerships & expanding coverage (in addition to new technology involving broadband, finally).
government needs to keep track of the goal. however, the competing interests will fight hard to protect their profits. the most obvious big 3 are at&t, verizon & comcast. putting money in to help qwest build ftth will ruffle Comcast's feathers. The same could be said for putting a competitive wireless network in place where Verizon plans on pushing it's next gen services in state's where it's selling it's wireline business such as West Virginia, Illinois, & Washington-- & so on..
the main question ends up being.. will the fed roll over & just hand the money over to incumbents & hope for the best.. even with red tape strapped to each billion? OR risk a whole lot of lobbying [aka money] & pressure to keep taxpayer funds from shaving their profit margins? | |
| |  AbBaZaBbAPremium
join:2002-07-10
Wildomar, CA
kudos:4 | net neutrality if net neutrality gets shot down I bet you will see some companies start to build out these rural areas. It's the ultimate non-competitive market. | |
| | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:1 | Re: net neutrality I wouldn't count on it. Major corps have yet to significantly build out rural areas. I don't see that changing regardless of whether any sort of net neutrality silliness passes or not. | |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Sweet... Time for the unserved to cough up the $62 billion. | |
| |  espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
·Clear Wireless
| Re: Sweet... said by pnh102:Time for the unserved to cough up the $62 billion. It's an investment in their future, afterall.. you know, with all the jobs it's going to create for them. | |
|
| |
|
|
Do I hear a broadband tax?
If I know the FCC they will tax you, me and just about everyone else that has broadband just to pay for this.