> On May 23, 2022, at 17:20, Sean Donelan <s...@donelan.com> wrote:
>
>
> Remember, this rulemaking is for 1.1 million locations with the "worst"
> return on investment. The end of the tail of the long tail. Rural and tribal
> locations which aren't profitable to provide higher speed broadband.
Yes… Places like San Jose, California, a city of over 1 million people don’t
get such protections… Nobody is looking out for or building for us.
> These locations have very low customer density, and difficult to serve.
Sure, but if you’re going to require any form of bandwidth that becomes
fiber-dependent, there’s no significant cost difference to delivering a gig.
> After the Sandwich Isles Communications scandal, gold-plated proposals will
> be viewed with skepticism. While a proposal may have a lower total cost of
> ownership over decades, the business case is the cheapest for the first 10
> years of subsidies. [massive over-simplification]
If the target is a non-fiber service, then 100/20 might make sense. If Fiber is
being installed, then it’s hard to find a rationale for 1Gbps being more
expensive than any lower capacity.
> Historically, these projects have lack of timely completion (abandoned,
> incomplete), and bad (overly optimistic?) budgeting.
Like virtually all telecom projects?
Owen
