I live pretty deep in a rural area, and there are only about 3 or 4 houses in the square mile I live in. My electric service comes from a co-op, and I'd be darn well pleased if that co-op could install and provide layer 2 service over fiber back to some local pick-up point where I could meet one or more internet providers.
On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 9:44 AM Masataka Ohta < mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote: > Sean Donelan wrote: > > >> USF is great for rural, but it has turned medium density and suburban > >> areas into connectivity wastelands. > > > > Carrier & cable lobbying organizations say that free market competition > > by multiple providers provide adequate service in those areas. > > That's simply untrue, because of natural regional monopoly. > > Competitive providers must invest same amount of money to cover > a certain area by their cables but their revenues are proportional > to their local market shares, which means only the provider with > the largest share can survive. > > In urban areas where local backbone costs, which are proportional > to market shares, exceeds cabling costs, there may be some > competitions. But, the natural regional monopoly is still > possible. > > Still, providers relying on older technologies will be > competitively replaced by other providers using newer > technologies, which is why DSL providers have been > disappearing and cable providers will disappear. > > In a long run, only fiber providers will survive. > > The problem, then, is that, with PON, there is no local > competition even if fibers are unbundled, because, > providers with smaller share can find smaller number > of subscribers around PON splitters, as, usually, > fiber cost between the splitters and stations are > same, which is why fiber providers prefer PON over SS. > > But, such preference is deadly for rural areas where > only one or two homes exist around PON splitters, > in which case, SS is less costly. > > Masataka Ohta >
