 | | It's not just "rural" Missouri that has the problem It's the medium sized cities too. I have family in cities with populations over 200k, and they still can't get DSL or Cable internet. | |
|
 |  ronpinImagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana | Re: It's not just "rural" Missouri that has the problem Declaring a muni fiber or WiFi network is all it takes to get the attention of the Telco's or cable cos. We have many examples here of intense Telco efforts to squash any such plans.
Let the announcements begin! (and watch the DSL flow!) 
--
50% of Americans vote - 30% are repugs -- do the math. | |
|
| | | | Re: It's not just "rural" Missouri that has the problem Closing the gap? Don't you mean closing the ravine? The HUGE ravine that is miles across? We wont get everyone broadband until 2015-2020 I think. | |
|
| | Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| I live in the middle of decent sized city but it seems to be charter has the speed I still have dsl even though I may only get 768/ 384 with direct tv what can you do charter wants to much.... Maybe ATT will fiber to remote terminals to make up for bad customer service now??? | |
|
| | |  morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | Re: It's not just "rural" Missouri that has the problem charter is a joke, as ISPs go. | |
|
 elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO | muni fiber id love for some fiber here in springfield  bring it on
A T and T is a joke and mediacom isnt much better
and theres places not 3 miles out of town that cant get DLS or cable | |
|
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | Re: muni fiber dont joke about muni fiber, AT&T will drag that right into court claiming its unfair competition even though they have zero intentions to deploy.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| | elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO | Re: muni fiber i was thinking along the lines of UTOPA in Utah
but oh well still wont think itll happen we do have free wi-fi in down town springfield | |
|
3 edits | The Real Problem (Edit - Corrected my math as outlined in replies below! thanks! I feel pretty dumb for missing that! )
------------
The real problem here is something most people dont think about. These places are called rural for a reason. The distance between the cities can be pretty great. Also the population levels in all the little towns and communities between these cities can be fairly sparse. Given these conditions, most companies are not going to spend the $10,000 - $30,000 that the DSLAMs and other server devices cost.
For example, let's say [edit] that the areas served by this new equipment would provide service to 500 people. That's generally 1 DSLAMs for every 50 people, and possibly one aggregator if there isnt one close enough already. That's a cost of roughly $150 - $300k just for hardware, without even considering what wire work might need to be installed and/or upgraded. If ALL 500 people agree to get DSL and actually keep it for 2 years, then you have 500 * $25 = $12,500 * 2 = $25k per month. Then we have $25k * 24 months for $600k a year. Sure, that covers the original $150 - $300k investment, but there are other factors to consider, aside from wiring and labor costs. [/edit]
In rural areas, DSL loop limits could likely be a challenge for many of those hypothetical 500 customers, leaving them with speeds not a great deal faster than dial up. [edit] Then there's the costs of the calls in to technical support, which can add up fast if there are unresolvable issues or difficult customers. [/edit]
The bottom line is [edit] that this is a very hypothetical example. All 500 people wouldnt subscribe to begin with. Then there'd be people that would cut into profits by calling technical support even when it's a computer problem and not a problem the provider can fix. Of the X number of those 500 people that signed up, a certain number would not stay with the service the whole two years for these and other reasons. In the long run, it becomes a question of if the company can get a return on it's investments [/edit]
Sure, people will complain that the telcos and cable companies make good money and are profitable in other areas of the country, but that doesn't mean they are going to intentionally throw money away in an unprofitable area. They are running a business afterall, and the goal there is to make money, not waste it. | |
|
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | Re: The Real Problem it is their job as a Utility to keep this nation at the forfront of communications tech in the world.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| | | | Re: The Real Problem That is unfortunately incorrect. Their job as a utility as mandated by federal laws is to make sure that their customers that are paying them for telephone service maintain a dial tone. Broadband internet service is not a regulated utility, it is a luxury service. It is not required. | |
|
| | | morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | Re: The Real Problem you are incorrect. telco's job (as agreed to by the tax credits, rebates, and other schemes) was to wire Pennsylvania with 45Mbit service up and down. Verizon received something around $2 billion dollars in favorable tax incentives to achieve this. but they just took the money and ran!
yes, broadband is not required, but when the terms and conditions for receiving $2billion in tax incentives are violated, any reasonable person can conclude that fraud/theft has occurred. | |
|
| | | said by ph03n1x:For example, let's say a town has 200 people. That's generally 4 DSLAMs and possibly one aggregator if there isnt one close by already. That's a cost of roughly $80k - $100k just for hardware, without even considering what wire work might need to be installed and/or upgraded. If ALL 200 people agree to get DSL and actually keep it for 2 years, then you have 200 * $25 = $5000 * 2 = $10k. That's quite a bit lower than $80 - $100k. I'm always amazed by the telco boys math.
Try 200 subs * $25 per month * 24 months = $120,000 | |
|
| |
1 edit | Re: The Real Problem Wow. That was a pretty big mistake on my part. How in the @$%^@ did I overlook that? Damn that's pretty weak of me. I went back and corrected my mistakes, making sure to note each place I edited.
Also, I wanted to add this little bit as well:
Does this excuse their behaviour? No. Do providers use this logic as an excuse when it isnt really the truth? Sure they do. Honestly, the biggest problem with not only broadband deployment but other areas of advancement is that most company's stock holders expect to make more and more profit each financial quarter. This is a ridiculously greedy and shortsighted outlook really, especially if you have to cut corners and negatively impact customers to do it. If you are making a profit, it shouldnt matter if it is less than you made last quarter. That's not a loss, but it is perceived as so. | |
|
| | | I want dsl for 25$ a year!
200*25*12*2=120k
Not saying your arguement is wrong but your math is. | |
|
| |  MrMoodyFree range slavePremium
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC | Re: The Real Problem Yep, and even at that rate, 200 is an extreme example. a CO or remote can cover about 28 square miles with DSL. I think you'd be hard pressed to find anywhere in the US east of the traditional frontier line (mid Kansas) where there's only 200 houses in 28 square miles. Maybe in parts of the Appalachians.
--
"It is a future in which globalization really does work ... and everybody winds up getting to be part of the third world." - William Gibson | |
|
| Reviews:
 ·Charter
| I would not say they are great distances between cities.
Just look at google maps and see all the small towns just a hour form downtown St.Louis. Hundreds.
Look at Farmington, Mo, near were I live, has Cable and DSL internet plus wireless. Yet I can drive 5min outside of town to 400+acre farms...yet Farmington is still about a Hour drive to downtown St.Louis. | |
|
| | WiMAX WiMAX is the way to go and states should subsidize Sprint/Clearwire to build it out in rural areas than can't get wired broadband. ATT does not have enough spectrum to do it in most states, just a few in the South. Sprint/Clearwire have lots of spectrum in just about every state. And they are using 2.5Ghz standard, which will be more commonly deployed than ATT spectrum. | |
|
| | Telcos just like an ex wife These telcos amaze me fighting muni systems. They are just like ex wife thinking. We don't want you but we don't want anyone else to have you either. | |
|
| | | Re: Telcos just like an ex wife I agree that this line of thinking is completely ridiculous. If they don't want to spend the money to deploy their services (such as for reasons I outlined in my post above), then they shouldn't get all defensive if someone else is willing to foot that bill. | |
|
| |
1 edit | Re: Telcos just like an ex wife If feel sorry for cities that are suckered into WiFi deployments. It is not and never was designed for metro-wide coverage. WiMAX is.
If they are going to subsidize private companies to build out WiFi, why not subsidize WiMAX companies instead and offer them free rent on lightpoles, etc.
Muni-WiFi is so dead once WiMAX gets rolling. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Telcos just like an ex wife No doubt. For rural areas, I can't agree more that the best way to go for customers and companies, the best way to go is WiMax like Sprint & Clearwire are doing. Best possibility of real broadband speeds.
What I'm not clear on is if the signal boxes they hang on lightpoles will interfere with a person's home wifi network? | |
|
 BadFrog5The devil made me do it
join:2005-08-21
Oxford, MI | Maybe you should buy VSAT Ever hear of Hughes or WildBlue ? Rural broadband is what these peole love to do !
--
BadFrog | |
|
| | | Re: Maybe you should buy VSAT Don't you mean rural suckband? | |
|
| | BadFrog5The devil made me do it
join:2005-08-21
Oxford, MI | Re: Maybe you should buy VSAT Dial-up is "rural suckband" ..!
--
BadFrog | |
|
 SandSharkLong may you runPremium,MVM
join:2000-05-23
Santa Fe, TX
kudos:3 | You Make A Choice I have a cousin that works in Cape Girardeau where broadband is readily available. However, he chose to live out in the country because of the peace and quiet, and because he wanted to live on a creek. He's with Wild Blue and I believe he pays something like $70/month for 1.0mbps/200kbps. Sometimes, you can't have your cake and eat it, too. Life sucks, doesn't it?
--
• • • - - - • • • | |
|
| elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO
1 edit | Re: You Make A Choice some of us didnt make a choice and dont have one
maybe all the farms should stop shipping to big citys too
you made a choice to live there why should you get fresh food | |
|
| | SandSharkLong may you runPremium,MVM
join:2000-05-23
Santa Fe, TX
kudos:3 | Re: You Make A Choice Don't have a choice where you live? Do you live on a rural prison farm? | |
|
| | |  spm9999Fluffy FarkletushPremium
join:2003-11-17
Imperial, MO | Re: You Make A Choice I want to find a cave in the middle of nowhere.. But I need high speed internet.. 
I'm serious..
--
»www.menofart.com | |
|
| | | | | | Re: You Make A Choice Shouldn't be to hard to find a cave around here! | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: You Make A Choice hehe nope. They are all over around here | |
|
| | | | |
1 edit | Oops, double post. Delete me | |
|
| | Why is geting broadband into these areas such a prob.?? I don't know & realy it shouldn't be. Is it money? I think not, you know the telcos & cable companies have enough. So what is it? | |
|
| | Rural Missouri DSL Missouri will find itself quickly unable to compete with other rural states who are coming online with highspeed (see initiatives for Kansas and Arkansas).
I am posting this article with the links to this forum on our blog, The Missouri Blog Network.
Thanks,
»moblognet.blogspot.com | |
|
| | | Michigan? Are we making any progress. I thought we were somewhere in the middle for broadband deployment. | |
|
| | On the other hand... I live on a farm, among other farms, ~15 miles outside of Columbia, MO. CenturyTel upgraded my $30/mo. 768kb/sec DSL connection (full download speed usable) to 1.544 Mb/sec (full download speed usable) last month for $0 difference. Yesterday, for a phone call and one year commitment (and $0 difference for the first year, $10 more thereafter) they upgraded me to (up to) 6 Mb/sec. So far, with the crappy wiring job I did and my ~5 year old "modem", I saw 410kB/sec download for a 25 MB file. This may have been server limited.
I never anticipated this kind of great service when I learned I was moving here. The contrast with the other reports here should enable someone to hold the other telco's feet to the fire and demand improvement. | |
|
|
|
