> 2) Last mile is expensive to install and hard to justify for people. This is because of a long history of universal service and subsidization/regulation.
Not only that, it makes it even worse when you hear firsthand accounts of "yea, this customer's DSL is screwed because at&t was too cheap to install proper guage wires like they did down the street in the same neighborhood!!" from an actual at&t digital technician. And yes, this was in the middle of a US city with almost 500k population. So much for "rethink possible", I guess we'll just have to live with "reach out and touch someone"...... -- m On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Jared Mauch <ja...@puck.nether.net> wrote: > > On Jun 10, 2011, at 10:01 AM, Kyle Creyts wrote: > > > I think the point is the ubiquity of access isn't what it should be. > > I think there were several good points made in the article. > > 1) Data caps and how they impact software updates (or downloads) - > hughesnet was mentioned but .. > > Looking to the near future, Apple is selling a 4GB download for $30 in the > next month or so. That will have a large impact on networks that day IMHO. > If you have a 3G/4G/LTE/whatnot device it makes it impossible to pull down > the image without hitting your 5GB or 10GB cap compared to a fixed access > network. > > Even assuming you go to the local Panera/McDonalds/Starbucks/Library > access, if you get 2MB/s (16Mb/s) you're talking about 20-25 minutes. Those > locales don't usually have that fast of a network though. > > 2) Last mile is expensive to install and hard to justify for people. This > is because of a long history of universal service and > subsidization/regulation. > > In Michigan you could get a phone line installed for $42 (not sure, haven't > installed POTS in a long time, may have gone up) regardless of the cost to > the carrier. This isn't the case when you want to extend other utilities > (eg Gas, electric, water...). People are willing to pay 10k+ to install > these services as part of their construction expense. Their other utility > cost is masked in part due to the past 100+ years of telecom history. The > cost of lighting a 20km strand of fiber at 1Gb/s is somewhere in the $600, > including ONT, etc. Many people here on nanog would happily pay that > amount. Now, the 12-100k per mile to build the fiber is the hard part to > eat. > > 3) Certainly he did a poor job of site selection. Perhaps he was misled or > even lied to. I've faced similar challenges when working with both hardware > vendors and carriers out there. The sales peoples eyes get big once you > start talking about "doing" something, but the engineers at the table > generally start asking serious questions. (I certainly will not move > anywhere that doesn't have a HFC or PON/FTTH network. Sorry > AT&T/Centurylink/others but the plusses don't justify the minuses). > > - > > It's certainly possible that we will see improved last-mile access. The > USDA/RUS and DOC/NTIA efforts are to be applauded. If you look at the > current AT&T + T-Mobile merger people are talking about it will bring > broadband to 97% of the country, and help AT&T (mobility division) with > last-mile/local tower regulatory hurdles. They are not talking about how it > will remove the need for data caps that are 1/30th the size of their 150GB > cap on their mobile side elements. > > I suspect there's a lot that could be improved by each market player here, > but as happened with Verizon in the Northeast, I expect the less-dense > markets will need to have better local service from regional players vs the > "big guys". Overall this will be good, but the costs will also have to be > paid for more with the local subscriber. > > - Jared >
