0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
probably not, fiber is a pain regardless and way after any post war reconstruction. density isnt it either because most of our population centers are pretty dense as well, and at least those areas should be serviced the same way as they have it in other countries.
problem with caps and the complaining is that they are treating this like its water..or gas. something with a fixed cost for delivery that doesn't really change, and a steady predictable demand that doesn't change. this is way different, you are setting limits on something that constantly gets cheaper to deliver, so its mostly just about securing profits by getting around the need to upgrade. if isps had set bandwidth caps years ago we wouldn't have a youtube...the limits that would be reasonable then would be absurd now. they just want to fix the market really.
Heh, oddly enough Cox has chosen Lafayette, LA as the first market in the nation to roll out their Docsis 3.0 with 50/5 Mbps speed. Population there is about 200,000 I believe, certainly not affluent either. Why Lafayette? They're *still* trying to kill the municipal fiber network that is just rolling out there, the one the citizens voted for 4 years ago, when it was obvious that Cox and Bellsouth didn't have any plans to get fiber there in a timely manner.
So if there's realistic competition in your area, the assholes will attempt to play ball. Otherwise it's "SCREW YOU." Wish I lived in Lafayette, look at this:
Fast 10 Mbps (Download AND Upload) $28.95
Turbo 30 Mbps (Download AND Upload) $44.95
Extreme 50 Mbps (Download AND Upload) $57.95
http://www.lusfiber.com/custom/?id=12
BTW, Cox and Bellsouth did everything they could to kill that municipal network before it was put up for a vote, then they spent big bucks to sway public opinion against it, waged a PR campaign, push polls (literally calling people and telling them "if the government controls cable TV, you may not be able to watch TV except on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday because they could ration your TV watching like they do with watering your yard"), the whole nine yards. That's their tried-and-true playbook when a community starts making noise about doing this. Somehow it didn't work this time.
These guys are scum. They're more interested in dicking around with capping their customers in an attempt to control internet-delivered content on their terms, while the rest of the world is passing us by in technology. They exist because they play local politics and get government granted monopolies. It wasn't that bad when it was just TV. Now they're essentially the gatekeepers for one of the most important resources of the 21st century.
WTH, we're already halfway to socialism, we might as well all vote for municipal networks, and spend some of those federal trillions on something useful.
the overwhelming majority of japanese live in cities
the overwhelming majority of americans live in cities
Bignate603
Lifer
- Sep 5, 2000
- 13,897
- 1
- 0
Fixed. The majority live around metropolitan areas in a humongous sprawl that is far less densely packed than Japanese or European cities.
frostedflakes
Diamond Member
- Mar 1, 2005
- 7,925
- 1
- 81
Yeah, that Lafayette fiber service is nuts. Honestly I'd like to see more communities look into building fiber infrastructure and either running it themselves or leasing the lines out to multiple ISPs to encourage competition.
The best part is you don't even need to get the bumbling bureaucrats in DC involved. Run the idea by your city commission or something.
techs
Lifer
- Sep 26, 2000
- 28,559
- 4
- 0
I agree with the people who say its all about the cable companies not wanting to cut into their tv business.
I also agree that its the immense power of the cable companies in Congress that has allowed them to use a non-competitive franchise (cable television) to monopolize a service that they should NOT be franchised for, the internet.
I also agree that its the immense power of the cable companies in Congress that has allowed them to use a non-competitive franchise (cable television) to monopolize a service that they should NOT be franchised for, the internet.
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Yeah, that Lafayette fiber service is nuts. Honestly I'd like to see more communities look into building fiber infrastructure and either running it themselves or leasing the lines out to multiple ISPs to encourage competition.
The best part is you don't even need to get the bumbling bureaucrats in DC involved. Run the idea by your city commission or something.
lulz, and just how much of your tax dollars are being used to build this? Other municipalities have tried, most all have failed. I wish them well but they cannot provide a return. It looks good from a capital side but then the operational expense burn it up and it becomes a money losing black hole.
ViviTheMage
Lifer
And your conspiracy theories are unfounded. the majority of americans have a choice in broadband internet service. You can't get around that very simple fact.
most people in japan and europe live in 'suburbs' too, they just aren't zoned as separate cites. For that matter, i don't think any major city anywhere quite matches the density of say, chicago or manhattan.
Meh, I'd rather live in my state of 16 people per square mile than to have cheap high speed internet. Then again, I like hiking and other outdoor activities more than sitting in front of a computer...
actually, its alot of islands, and is that supposed to be a positive of negative?
I wonder where its cheaper to lay cable, in some suburb where your only problem is running wire, or in cities, where your problem is running wire. Somehow i think the suburbs shoudl be easier (and hence cheaper)
you realize that that is perfectly feasible combination right? You don't have to wire up empty land, its all about where and how the people are distributed.
frostedflakes
Diamond Member
- Mar 1, 2005
- 7,925
- 1
- 81
Haven't a lot of failures in municipal broadband have been with free WiFi and other services that just aren't practical? I don't see why what they're doing in Lafayette wouldn't work, though. The initial outlay is being covered by government bonds, which can be paid back over a period of decades. The costs will be covered by subscriptions fees, they shouldn't even have to dip into tax revenue. Of course time will tell I guess, but to me it just makes a lot of sense.Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Yeah, that Lafayette fiber service is nuts. Honestly I'd like to see more communities look into building fiber infrastructure and either running it themselves or leasing the lines out to multiple ISPs to encourage competition.
The best part is you don't even need to get the bumbling bureaucrats in DC involved. Run the idea by your city commission or something.
lulz, and just how much of your tax dollars are being used to build this? Other municipalities have tried, most all have failed. I wish them well but they cannot provide a return. It looks good from a capital side but then the operational expense burn it up and it becomes a money losing black hole.
And if the service is doomed for failure, why did incumbent cablecos and telcos fight it tooth and nail? What are they afraid of? Perhaps that cities can provide a better service than they can at a lower price.
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Haven't a lot of failures in municipal broadband have been with free WiFi and other services that just aren't practical? I don't see why what they're doing in Lafayette wouldn't work, though. The initial outlay is being covered by government bonds, which can be paid back over a period of decades. The costs will be covered by subscriptions fees, they shouldn't even have to dip into tax revenue. Of course time will tell I guess, but to me it just makes a lot of sense.Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Yeah, that Lafayette fiber service is nuts. Honestly I'd like to see more communities look into building fiber infrastructure and either running it themselves or leasing the lines out to multiple ISPs to encourage competition.
The best part is you don't even need to get the bumbling bureaucrats in DC involved. Run the idea by your city commission or something.
lulz, and just how much of your tax dollars are being used to build this? Other municipalities have tried, most all have failed. I wish them well but they cannot provide a return. It looks good from a capital side but then the operational expense burn it up and it becomes a money losing black hole.
And if the service is doomed for failure, why did incumbent cablecos and telcos fight it tooth and nail? What are they afraid of? Perhaps that cities can provide a better service than they can at a lower price.
Bonds are capital. Everybody knows and the history shows that 20% of the cost of a network is capital (the gear and physical stuff). The other is 80% operational costs, every year, year after year, every year.
Guess what is collected to cover constantly increasing year over year operational costs of doing business (gubment)? Taxes.
And talk about a monopoly! NTT is the perfect monopoly.
Bignate603
Lifer
- Sep 5, 2000
- 13,897
- 1
- 0
Bignate603
Lifer
- Sep 5, 2000
- 13,897
- 1
- 0
They still have to run the cable to the people. You can't skip over the empty land between houses.
frostedflakes
Diamond Member
- Mar 1, 2005
- 7,925
- 1
- 81
And why wouldn't the subscription fees be enough to cover operational expenses? They are very low, but not unreasonable. If the private sector can profit with a similar rate structure, I don't understand why a city couldn't.Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Haven't a lot of failures in municipal broadband have been with free WiFi and other services that just aren't practical? I don't see why what they're doing in Lafayette wouldn't work, though. The initial outlay is being covered by government bonds, which can be paid back over a period of decades. The costs will be covered by subscriptions fees, they shouldn't even have to dip into tax revenue. Of course time will tell I guess, but to me it just makes a lot of sense.Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Yeah, that Lafayette fiber service is nuts. Honestly I'd like to see more communities look into building fiber infrastructure and either running it themselves or leasing the lines out to multiple ISPs to encourage competition.
The best part is you don't even need to get the bumbling bureaucrats in DC involved. Run the idea by your city commission or something.
lulz, and just how much of your tax dollars are being used to build this? Other municipalities have tried, most all have failed. I wish them well but they cannot provide a return. It looks good from a capital side but then the operational expense burn it up and it becomes a money losing black hole.
And if the service is doomed for failure, why did incumbent cablecos and telcos fight it tooth and nail? What are they afraid of? Perhaps that cities can provide a better service than they can at a lower price.
Bonds are capital. Everybody knows and the history shows that 20% of the cost of a network is capital (the gear and physical stuff). The other is 80% operational costs, every year, year after year, every year.
Guess what is collected to cover constantly increasing year over year operational costs of doing business (gubment)? Taxes.
And talk about a monopoly! NTT is the perfect monopoly.
In theory it is, but in practice, no it is not really that feasible. Unless you can just wire the houses together and they magically have internet no backbone required. Not to mention we are talking about 1 person to 40 acres of land here. The largest city is ~845K people at a density of 2796 ppl/sq.mile and that alone is 42% of the states population.
So yeah, if all 2 million people lived in a 200 or so square mile city and it happened to have some OC lines running through it, then it is quite feasible. However, since my state is not much smaller than Japan and has 1/64th the population, I stand by my post.
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Haven't a lot of failures in municipal broadband have been with free WiFi and other services that just aren't practical? I don't see why what they're doing in Lafayette wouldn't work, though. The initial outlay is being covered by government bonds, which can be paid back over a period of decades. The costs will be covered by subscriptions fees, they shouldn't even have to dip into tax revenue. Of course time will tell I guess, but to me it just makes a lot of sense.Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Yeah, that Lafayette fiber service is nuts. Honestly I'd like to see more communities look into building fiber infrastructure and either running it themselves or leasing the lines out to multiple ISPs to encourage competition.
The best part is you don't even need to get the bumbling bureaucrats in DC involved. Run the idea by your city commission or something.
lulz, and just how much of your tax dollars are being used to build this? Other municipalities have tried, most all have failed. I wish them well but they cannot provide a return. It looks good from a capital side but then the operational expense burn it up and it becomes a money losing black hole.
And if the service is doomed for failure, why did incumbent cablecos and telcos fight it tooth and nail? What are they afraid of? Perhaps that cities can provide a better service than they can at a lower price.
Bonds are capital. Everybody knows and the history shows that 20% of the cost of a network is capital (the gear and physical stuff). The other is 80% operational costs, every year, year after year, every year.
Guess what is collected to cover constantly increasing year over year operational costs of doing business (gubment)? Taxes.
And talk about a monopoly! NTT is the perfect monopoly.
The Japanese government owns like 40% of NTT...
island the size of california. so how come we don't have decent connections in san francisco, san diego, or los angeles.
ed21x
Diamond Member
- Oct 12, 2001
- 5,411
- 8
- 81
by that argument, you have around 9 million residents in a 300 sq mile area of New York City, and a metropolitan population of over 19 million, which is pretty much as dense as Seoul per unit area. And internet still sucks in NYC. I think the greatest factor by far is the fact that the internet infrastructure in asia is subsidized by the government and given priority much like a utility company, while in the US, it is completely privitized and even worse, given its own monopoly.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter