|
Xae posted:Explain to me how your position is substantively different than "64KB of Memory ought to be enough for anyone". When Bill Gates said it (or didn't)in 1981 (it was 640k not 64k) it was a true statement. He didn't say, nobody will ever need more than 640k, he said that's all anyone needed right then (or didn't). Right now, no home user can utilize 1gb, period, even if they were actually getting 1gb to the peering point (they arent). Maybe if they have 50 telepresence rooms going at once, to 50 other users on the same provider's gb fiber local network. Does that mean we'll never use it? I imagine something will come along. When people are willing to pay for more bandwidth, they'll get it. realize that the vast majority of broadband users in the US are on their provider's bottom tier. Not everyone's an anime slurping goon.
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 20:58 |
|
|
Okay so we've seen some arguments from the industry crowd here: 1. The US can't have average broadband numbers as high as places like Romania because it has larger populated rural areas to cover. 2. The US can't have average broadband numbers as high as places like Romania because it has a lot of legacy infrastructure. 3. The US telecom industry is building infrastructure as fast as possible already. "Nobody spends as much money on infrastructure as the big 2 telcos" (Technically a relative statement but that's the feeling.) 4. No ISPs actually provide their advertised bandwidth. (In response to a complaint about Comcast.) 5. Nobody actually needs 1 gbit internet. 6. If you pay for such high bandwidth, the ISP's trunk to the internet won't support simultaneous users at that bandwidth. I would point out that 1 and 2 together neatly excuse US telcos from providing modern speeds anywhere. The main issue with these though is that they don't seem to jibe with user experience in the US. Particularly, none of them engage with price. As the thread title indicates, user experience is that: 1. US ISPs are local monopolies; there is often one and rarely more than 2 choices for broadband in any market, and they often don't compete directly. Customers feel helpless. 2. Performance rarely matches advertisements. Speeds are over-advertised and there is no recourse for interruptions. This is true in urban areas as well. 3. Prices are high and often feel arbitrary. Metered internet feels like a scam. My rural family was on a plan that offered 5GB/month for $30, and charged by the MB after that. In short, a lot of the country, both urban and rural, experience lovely internet for a pretty high price. Cable connections are sometimes unreliable, DSL is slow, and prices have risen, not fallen. (Though I'm not sure how they would look adjusted for inflation.) I would ask the industry insiders, since they're the people who seem to have their act together in the thread, a few questions: 1. What is the logic behind US internet pricing structures? Do you think it's fair to consumers? 2. If competition is impossible in this kind of market and the ISPs got a lot of public fiber for free, why do we need private ISPs anyway? 3. Are the US telecom companies really building infrastructure as fast as possible? If that's true, how can initiatives like municipal fiber and Google Fiber exist? 4. Metered internet can be presented as a response to a few super-users, but the potential for abuse in a market dominated by local monopolies is obvious. Why do you think telecoms' implementation is fair? 5GB/month for $30. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 17:04 on Jun 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
UX item 2 is incorrect - US ISPs generally do deliver advertised speed, far more so than most other countries' ISPs. There was a link posted up thread showing exactly that. (Re interruptions, I somehow doubt that that's a US specific problem. Contractors cut cables everywhere, after all.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:Right, you won't goad me into sharing proprietary information, but I'd like some proof from you that you've ever used 100mb at once, since you're the one making the outrageous claim. That's a lot of words for "I'm full of poo poo". If you knew anything you'd post in the tech related forums instead of D&D.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:Does that mean we'll never use it? I imagine something will come along. When people are willing to pay for more bandwidth, they'll get it. realize that the vast majority of broadband users in the US are on their provider's bottom tier. Not everyone's an anime slurping goon. Again, this assumes that providers' price structures are efficient. Also, I'd say that a connection that can't download video as fast or faster than you can watch it is a bad connection in the modern world. As the under-30 generation replaces television with the internet the anime-slurping goon usage pattern is going to be the rule rather than the exception. And it says a lot that you have contempt for consumers of your product. I think contempt for the customer is part of the US telco image in general so good job reinforcing that. It's hard to believe that the industry is building out as fast as possible, hampered by legacy infrastructure in the cities and lack of infrastructure in the rural areas (screwed both ways huh?) and charging some of the highest prices in the world, yet also waiting on customers to decide to pay for the speeds they want.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 16:59
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Okay so we've seen some arguments from the industry crowd here: 2 and 3 seem contradictory because you worded them incorrectly. The correct wording would be something like: quote:2. The US doesn't have average broadband numbers as high as places like Romania because it has a lot of legacy infrastructure. Again, from the data I have found here the US is not really that far behind for actual "high speed" internet (that is >10Mbit/s). Our main issue is that fewer people are covered in the 4Mbit-10Mbit range than a lot of other countries. Which makes sense if a lot of our internet buildout was before >4Mbit speeds were common (which seems likely).
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:It's hard to believe that the industry is building out as fast as possible, hampered by legacy infrastructure in the cities and lack of infrastructure in the rural areas (screwed both ways huh?) and charging some of the highest prices in the world, yet also waiting on customers to decide to pay for the speeds they want. They're hampered by legacy infrastructure because Telcos were too stupid/cheap to lay fiber in the 90s. They invested in Copper Long distance networks instead of data networks, just in time for long distance prices to collapse. If you look at the countries with Cheap, Faster internet that is the difference. The countries with lovely and slow internet refused to invest in Fiber and tried to bolster their copper networks. The countries that replaced copper with Fiber are the ones with fast, cheap connections.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
Going to selectively answer some of these...Arglebargle III posted:Okay so we've seen some arguments from the industry crowd here: 1st #3, isn't relative, it's absolute. both telcos I've worked for have claimed that no US company spends as much on US based infrastructure as VZ and AT&T on a year over year basis. 1st #6, yeah, this isn't controversial. All ISPs trunk down from total end-user subscription to ISP peering points. Otherwise the peering points would have to scale by at least an order of magnitude, with commensurate effect on cost/price. All for marginal, if any, improvement in end-user experience. 2nd #3, by and large, I agree, I don't like metered usage. If the meters are set reasonably, then maybe it's ok. There's a lot of debate in the industry about this. If 99% of your users are comfortably under the cap, it's like anything else, the 1% perhaps should pay more than the 99. You can always get a business circuit if you *need* unmetered usage in those places. 3rd #1, the logic is the ISPs want to make a profit. The shareholders, including your mom and dad's 401ks, demand a profit. 3rd #2, I don't understand your question. Who got free fiber? 3rd #3, the demand for ftth exceeds the operational and financial ability to provide of even companies of AT&T and VZ's size. Muni fiber and google fiber, for as long as it holds their interest, are good for competition, and have resulted in the telcos doing additional investment and pricing writedowns in those areas. You'll see that the telcos have to split investment between ftth and mobility. 3rd #4, you're referring to cellular data? What do you think is a fair price? Is there a margin that the telco should reasonably expect to earn from it's investment, or should it all be done at cost?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
The X-man cometh posted:That's a lot of words for "I'm full of poo poo". If you knew anything you'd post in the tech related forums instead of D&D. So what's your street cred on this? You're just here to criticize? it doesn't seem like you actually know anything about the topic at all. I participate in tech forums, but at work, not at play. The S:N ratio is pretty ugly here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
I didn't really mean for people to contest the 6 points at the beginning, I'm just summing up things other people have said in the thread. I don't really know if they're true.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Again, this assumes that providers' price structures are efficient. Also, I'd say that a connection that can't download video as fast or faster than you can watch it is a bad connection in the modern world. As the under-30 generation replaces television with the internet the anime-slurping goon usage pattern is going to be the rule rather than the exception. And it says a lot that you have contempt for consumers of your product. I think contempt for the customer is part of the US telco image in general so good job reinforcing that. What connection can't download video as fast as you watch it? Are you on legacy DSL? Hell my kids never watch cable. Everything is netflix and amazon streaming, and works fine on our 50mb cable modem. I don't have contempt for anime slurping goons, I'm pointing out the reality that no company, if it wants to stay in business, designs a network for the 1%, design has always been based on erlang tables, or similar methodology. People don't want to pay a premium to use basic internet functionality so some user can take 100x the resources at the same price. The industry spends a ton of dough building out. Go read about what VZ and AT&T are doing with next gen VoIP for the home, at the same time as building out cellular networks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:So what's your street cred on this? You're just here to criticize? it doesn't seem like you actually know anything about the topic at all. I participate in tech forums, but at work, not at play. The S:N ratio is pretty ugly here. I do consulting on market growth and development, and the regulatory/tax compliance implications of capital expansions. That's how I can tell you're another sad sack drone who buys all the bullshit upper management spits out. Telco brass don't give a poo poo about technical concerns, it's all about market scarcity. They just need to tell you that you matter so you take lower wages because you "mean something to them".
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
The X-man cometh posted:I do consulting on market growth and development, and the regulatory/tax compliance implications of capital expansions. Ha, no you don't. You're some rear end in a top hat that just googled "complex sounding yet plausible title". As far as lower wages go, um, no, I do quite well thank you very much. Scarcity is a real dumb argument too when you see companies tightening the belt to increase investment while still paying a stock dividend. Good luck with your made up career. edit; in other words, you don't know jack poo poo about broadband communications, you should probably just admit it Pauline Kael fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Jun 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
Okay I guess it's pointless to ask if all you can say is that AT&T and Verizon spend "a lot" on infrastructure and have zero information about price structures. I admit I don't have knowledge of what the telco price structure looks like but you should stop answering if you don't have any information either.quote:Muni fiber and google fiber, for as long as it holds their interest, are good for competition, and have resulted in the telcos doing additional investment and pricing writedowns in those areas. This alone suggests that prices in areas without competition in the broadband market(most of the US) are not efficient. Which is exactly what you'd expect with monopolies. I would say the telco cheerleaders in the thread would disagree but they've provided nothing about price so far. Hope Nintendo Kid will come back and answer some of my questions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
oops, internet problems ironically because it's May 35th and my google-based VPN isn't working right in the glorious celestial kingdom (I have an 8mb down/2mb up connection and I pay maybe $8/month for it in a major Chinese city.) Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Jun 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:
No one suggested they were efficient, just that they were comparable with other countries.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 17:30
|
|
computer parts posted:No one suggested they were efficient, just that they were comparable with other countries. This thread reminds me of the fracking threads where you have "industry insiders" talking down to people who misunderstand the industry but as a whole are unwilling to address "why should our communication networks be privatized in the first place" which is what "we can do" about improving our networks in this country. Whether or not they are "terrible" is beyond the point, they could be way better if we stopped having to pay profits to shareholders. The internet is a common good, might as well treat it like one.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:This thread reminds me of the fracking threads where you have "industry insiders" talking down to people who misunderstand the industry but as a whole are unwilling to address "why should our communication networks be privatized in the first place" which is what "we can do" about improving our networks in this country. Whether or not they are "terrible" is beyond the point, they could be way better if we stopped having to pay profits to shareholders. The internet is a common good, might as well treat it like one. Well yeah, that's a given.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:Ha, no you don't. You're some rear end in a top hat that just googled "complex sounding yet plausible title". As far as lower wages go, um, no, I do quite well thank you very much. Scarcity is a real dumb argument too when you see companies tightening the belt to increase investment while still paying a stock dividend. Good luck with your made up career. I didn't google poo poo, but thank you for letting me know how you made your poo poo up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
Went back to check that chart showing US broadband prices are high relative to the rest of the world while being unexceptional in speeds and found thisNintendo Kid posted:People who believe in competition as a source of meaningful reductions in prices for utility services don't even understand the capitalism they're attempting to tout. great quote that illustrates the reason I asked why we have private ISPs at all. If it's a utility service why is not subsidized and price controlled like any other utility service?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Okay I guess it's pointless to ask if all you can say is that AT&T and Verizon spend "a lot" on infrastructure and have zero information about price structures. I admit I don't have knowledge of what the telco price structure looks like but you should stop answering if you don't have any information either. YOu should define what you're looking for. I work with the ICB pricing group on custom contracts, but that's a little different than the consumer side, but it's fair to say that price structures adhere to cost+desired margin, pretty much like in any other business. Most carriers aren't in the 'build it and they will come' mode any longer since it caused considerable financial harm last time the industry operated that way. New business has to stand on its own, not just in the hope that more business will come. The ftth and cellular initiatives are proven money makers for the company. ftth costs a lot less to operate, and cellular data is still growing. If there was a surge in bandwidth demand, you would see higher tiers available. A tiny fraction of customer choose the top tier today, even though the marginal cost is low.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:There is a relatively sweet spot in terms of density. Too little, and you have to overengineer with repeaters and expensive network edge equipment. Too much, and it becomes physically difficult to actually make any changes without major effort. I work for a big (big!) telco, and used to work for the other big telco. My service area is NYC, and has in the past included upstate NY. It's a lot easier and cheaper to roll out a new service in Westchester than it is in Manhattan. Because of the Public Service Commission, the pricing will typically be postalized across the state/city, but all that really means is that every gets stuck paying whatever the highest rate would be if all the locations could be priced as standalone entities like how cable does it. This does nothing to quantify anything. This is more "reasons."
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 17:39
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:great quote that illustrates the reason I asked why we have private ISPs at all. If it's a utility service why is not subsidized and price controlled like any other utility service. The funny part being that actual competition is driving the ISPs to finally innovate because they've all colluded into not competing with each other. Google enters the market, what happens. http://blog.chron.com/techblog/2013/03/comcast-doubles-internet-speeds-for-many-of-its-houston-customers/ These multibillion dollar media conglomerate megacorps are the problem, not population density, investment, or anything like that. Pauline Kael posted:I do quite well thank you very much. It pays to suck the teats of your multibillionaire bosses, doesn't it? I mean, I get why you do it at work, but why you spend your free time doing it is kinda beyond me. Can't expect a man to fight against the hand that feeds him and all that.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Well, we know that Netflix represents a large part if not the majority of web traffic in the US. For the Netflix 1080p "Super HD" option, you need around 7Mb/s for the best possible picture quality. Even if you have all five Netflix users streaming Super HD level Netflix that only comes up to about 35Mb/s - about a third of your 100Mbit/s minimum. Assuming you're actually getting your rated speeds, of course. I nominally get 35 MB/s down, but it's pretty easy to bring the connection to its knees during peak times. There's five users on our connection and potentially there are up to 3 netflix streams going, theoretically it should work fine but in real life it bottlenecks. Also 4K video is just about to hit the market in a big way this year, display prices are finally down to reasonable levels. Netflix already is beginning 4K streaming as of April 2014, and that consumes 15.5 Mbps, so five users streaming Netflix really can effectively saturate a 100mbps connection since getting the advertised speeds doesn't happen at the times people actually want to use the connection. Netflix also really compresses the poo poo out of their streams and even the higher bandwidths can have some pretty noticeable artifacts. In the abstract it would be very desirable to increase the bandwidth further. Really though "why do you need gigabit" is a dumb question in general. Applications using large amounts of bandwidth are a chicken and egg problem, no one will deploy them until there are customers capable of running the application. And you don't need to saturate the connection 24/7, average utilization has always been a dumb way to look at bandwidth. It's really nice to be able to pull down a big file in 2 minutes instead of 30 minutes even if the other 90% of the time the connection is idling. Movies are kind of an exception, most content can't really be used until it's fully pulled down. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 17:52 on Jun 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:it's fair to say that price structures adhere to cost+desired margin, pretty much like in any other business. I find that very hard to believe considering that the costs of an infrastructure monopoly with huge capital investment and tiny operating costs are so different from an average company.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
"Desired margin" aka "as much as possible" For as much as you know about networking you know jack poo poo about business.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Assuming you're actually getting your rated speeds, of course. I nominally get 35 MB/s down, but it's pretty easy to bring the connection to its knees during peak times. When this happens, a lot of people will want to upgrade their service tier. If enough people do it, it'll force the carriers/ISPs to invest more in the backbone and peering. In absence of that type of demand though, what exactly should drive the gb service to the home?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:The funny part being that actual competition is driving the ISPs to finally innovate because they've all colluded into not competing with each other. Google enters the market, what happens. The answer to "B-b-but you can't expect these companies to not make a profit" is apparently to threaten their revenues with a superior product. Suddenly all the hemming and hawing about the cost of deploying fiber gets tossed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 17:46
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:In absence of that type of demand though, what exactly should drive the gb service to the home? Having America stay in front of the technology and maximize the amount of people who can innovate new services. It is a common good. There is nothing but benefit to building out a nationwide gigabit fiber network. And we can do it a lot cheaper than your poo poo bosses can by 2020 or whenever they've told you fiber will be in by. Why should profits and demand drive internet service speeds when buildings these networks out would cost a tiny amount of the federal budget. Hell, we could even pay for the project entirely by taxing the poo poo out of the Comcast executive team.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I find that very hard to believe considering that the costs of an infrastructure monopoly with huge capital investment and tiny operating costs are so different from an average company. Tiny operating costs? care to explain that? You realize that the carriers/ISPs are pretty big employers, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 17:48
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:Tiny operating costs? care to explain that? You realize that the carriers/ISPs are pretty big employers, right? Good point, let's pay for what we need and make them public employees and remove the fat cat capitalists from the picture. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/28/comcast-ceo-internet_n_5405998.html You're right, they are "ok", which isn't good enough you idiot
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:http://blog.chron.com/techblog/2013/03/comcast-doubles-internet-speeds-for-many-of-its-houston-customers/ Wowww 6 mb/s for $50/month. I know it's anecdotal but again, I get 8 mb/s for $8/month. Could be less because my ISP's price structure is completely different than a subscription model. I actually pay by the gigabyte, but the meter price is so low that I never bothered to check. Every few months my internet stops working and I go down to the office and pay them about $20 and it works for another few months.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Having America stay in front of the technology and maximize the amount of people who can innovate new services. It is a common good. There is nothing but benefit to building out a nationwide gigabit fiber network. And we can do it a lot cheaper than your poo poo bosses can by 2020 or whenever they've told you fiber will be in by. That's fine, and desirable, but what's magical about 1gb? Wouldn't 10gb be better? Also, if you think the US could get ftth for the cost of taxing comcast execs, well, you're bad at math.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 17:50
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:That's fine, and desirable, but what's magical about 1gb? Reasonable goal given the state of the technology quote:Wouldn't 10gb be better? Yes, and I think we should be thinking about that capacity today while we're building these networks (long-term thinking! gasp!) quote:Also, if you think the US could get ftth for the cost of taxing comcast execs, well, you're bad at math. Sorry, the tax bracket they belong to. Good ol Brian Roberts (CEO of comcast, net worth 1.3billion) can throw $1 billion in though. A 90% wealth tax on all wealth past $200 million seems like a great place to start funding our 10gb network. What percentage of our plan does $1 billion pay for mr networking expert?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:Tiny operating costs? care to explain that? You realize that the carriers/ISPs are pretty big employers, right? If Network Operations make up 10% of Telco total employees I would be shocked.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Good point, let's pay for what we need and make them public employees and remove the fat cat capitalists from the picture. Again, I'd be a lot more concerned if people were taxing the connections they have. They aren't, or, they're not willing to pay any more than they are today because they don't see the utility in the additional cost. Most people here assume that if a gb were available, but it cost $5 more per month than the 10mb plan today, that the bulk of users would switch to the gb plan. That's not typically how it's played out in ftth scenarios, people buy the least expensive tier available. The vast vast majority are under the top tier. Bringing 1gb is a neat project, I guess, but it's misallocated resource because few are going to buy it, and even fewer are going to utilize it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
Xae posted:If Network Operations make up 10% of Telco total employees I would be shocked. Do you think that 'network operations' are the only 'operational' cost for ISPs?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 17:59
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:Again, I'd be a lot more concerned if people were taxing the connections they have. They aren't, or, they're not willing to pay any more than they are today because they don't see the utility in the additional cost. I am, and it's not even available here. I don't want to pay $200/mo for a dedicated line that's reliable where I can transfer large files while I work from home. It should not cost that much and providing that connection to everyone has benefits (like future-proofing now for when we DO need the bandwidth) that go beyond needing to question whether it's necessary. It will be in the future, let's start now. And we might as well do it as cheap as possible, which means removing private industry from the picture of infrastructure, which we should have done 20 years ago when we realized how big the internet was going to be. quote:Most people here assume that if a gb were available, but it cost $5 more per month than the 10mb plan today, that the bulk of users would switch to the gb plan. That's not typically how it's played out in ftth scenarios, people buy the least expensive tier available. The vast vast majority are under the top tier. Bringing 1gb is a neat project, I guess, but it's misallocated resource because few are going to buy it, and even fewer are going to utilize it. No poo poo people buy the least expensive tier, it's loving pricey and the company you work for makes it living hell to get anything done so people loving hate them. Why would I pay $89.99 for Comcast's top tier when A. I won't even get the advertised speed, B. my reliability will still be subpar which is honestly all that matters and C. the company is run by a bunch of rich assholes who can't even stop sending me marketing materials when IM ALREADY A CUSTOMER. TLDR: gently caress big telco, they are the problem, and while I understand your desire to protect the hand that feeds you, gently caress off. sitting here writing paragraphs to people arguing whether or not our service is "terrible" is just distracting people from the bigger issue, which is what you should be talking about if you gave a drat about network quality in America
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
In 2012, the FCCs broadband progress report notes that: 90% of Americans had access to services providing at least 10 Mbps down. 28% of Americans had subscribed to services of at least 6/1.5 capacity. Edit: the First and Second Measuring Broadband reports say everyone saying "I don't get advertised speed!" is full of poo poo. And the most common reason people don't subscribe to broadband or to higher tiers, per an extensive FCC study on this topic, is that they don't want it. Not cost. They just don't see the need. (See the Digital Nation report for details.) It's almost like this is a well studied topic with tons of data proving your anecdotes wrong! Kalman fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Jun 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 20:58 |
|
|
down with slavery posted:Reasonable goal given the state of the technology Not much really. The numbers are out there if you care to do the research, but I've seen figures from between $2k to $10k per house. Using 2k that gets you about 500k houses. I understand that my former company is actually losing money on their ftth rollout. I'm sure the Feds could do it much more efficiently. It's certainly within the realm of possibility that the US Govt could get into this business, and ultimately fiber up the whole place, but someone would have to decide what they didn't want to spend money on as the opportunity cost for doing so.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 18:08
|
|