> On Aug 5, 2014, at 10:56, Eugeniu Patrascu <eu...@imacandi.net> wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 8:26 PM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> This one is a bad idea cause you have lots of people pushing fiber through >> >> pipes with active fiber in them... and their incentives not to screw up >> >> other people's glass are... unclear? :-) >> > >> > Not really, if one company starts making mistakes, the other will also >> > mistake their cables. It's like a working mexican standoff :) >> > >> > >> >> In reality, Mexican standoffs are often fatal. > > If you blink. > >> >> Oh, wait: the conduit installer isn't a contractor, they're a monopoly? >> > The people pushing fiber through the conduits are contractors. There are a >> > handful of companies licensed to operate this. >> >> May be workable, but seems more expensive than operating cross connects in a >> serving wire center with little or no plausible benefit. > > So how is blowing microfibre in some tubes more expensive? You pay a one off > installation fee and then a small monthly rate for the circuit (payable > yearly).
And then when you switch providers, you pay all of that again instead of a quick move of a cross connect inside a building. > > The really nice and geeky part is that you can actually choose how your fiber > will run, so if you want diverse paths to a location you can achieve that > with certainty. Not particularly important to 99.999+% of residential users. > >> > >> > >> >> No, that's even worse. >> > >> > >> > It's not perfect, but it works. >> >> People say that about windows. I don't use it, either. > > :) It works because it's very cheap to get high speed internet into all kinds > of areas, especially residential ones. So is what I am proposing. In fact, I'm pretty sure my proposal is cheaper, especially in the long run.
