[GRLUG] NOT LINUX - broadband

[Bob Kline]

The population density argument is often
cited, but I think if there was anything to
it most of us wouldn't have landlines, cable,
water, sewer, electricity, etc.  Certainly one
wouldn't include fibers to the boonies in the
beginning, but metropolitan areas in most
states are surely candidates.  It's no more
expensive to run a fiber to the home than
a twisted pair if you do it during construction.

The average cost to run a twisted pair today
is about $2,000.  But it's a long term investment,
and the phone or cable companies could
amortise the cost over 20 years or more.  A
fiber could be retrofitted for that much, on
average, and less in many cases.

France has over 50Mbps, and it does not have
the population density of SK or Japan.  Even
so, one would sensibly start in Paris.

   -- Bob


On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 3:18 PM, john-thomas richards <jtr at jrichards.org>wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 02:52:43PM -0400, Bob Kline wrote:
> >
> http://tech.yahoo.com/news/nm/20090902/wr_nm/us_telecom_broadband_definition_2
> >
> > Comcast is of course leading the charge
> > for mediocre performance.  If you don't
> > provide decent bandwidth, change the
> > definition.
> >
> > Note the bandwidth figures for Japan, S. Korea,
> > and France.  What Comcast and others in the US
> > propose is pathetic.
>
> Japan's population density is 870 people per square mile.  South Korea's
> is 1,260.  France's population density is 280.  The United States?  A
> mere 80 people per square mile.  It is far more cost-effective to lay
> high-bandwidth fiber to several hundred people per square mile than it
> is to only 80.  The reports you cited were in response to the
> President's desire to increase broadband coverage in America.  That
> primarily means rural areas since most cities have some form of
> broadband.  It makes sense to not define broadband as 16.0Mb/1Mb.
> Laying the lines necessary for those speeds to a community of 300 people
> is not economically feasible.  The return on investment would be
> horrible.  That being said, defining broadband as 768k/200k is absurd.
> It is somewhere in between.  The US will never have an average broadband
> speed even close to that of Japan, South Korea, or France.  It doesn't
> make economic sense.
>
> I have friends who live in Colorado City, CO.  Colorado City was once
> believed to be the next boom town out west so when you drive through it
> you see lots of "roads" that aren't really roads.  Just down the
> mountain from my friends' home is a plateau that has dozens and dozens
> of street signs on "street corners" but with no evidence of actual
> streets (since they were never actually built, given that the "boom"
> never arrived).  They, in this small town, have fiber *TO THE HOME*.
> They get their television (100+ channels), telephone and separate fax
> line, and internet connection via fiber, with no copper but what is in
> the home.  A local mom & pop ISP laid all this fiber, hoping to make it
> big when the boom happened.  If you buy a lot and build a home, you can
> have fiber hooked up right along with your electricity.  All of those
> roads that don't really exist were not in the way when the fiber was
> laid.  If the roads were already paved, there is no way a small ISP
> could afford to lay that much fiber.  It's doubtful that a large ISP
> could.
> --
> john-thomas
> ------
> The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
> discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny ..."
> Isaac Asimov
> _______________________________________________
> grlug mailing list
> grlug at grlug.org
> http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://shinobu.grlug.org/pipermail/grlug/attachments/20090902/f15c5460/attachment-0001.htm