Slashdot Mirror
The NYT Compares Broadband Upgrade Costs in US, Japan
zxjio writes with this excerpt from a New York Times article about just how much networking infrastructure costs vary between the US and Japan: "Pretty much the fastest consumer broadband in the world is the 160-megabit-per-second service offered by J:Com, the largest cable company in Japan. Here's how much the company had to invest to upgrade its network to provide that speed: $20 per home passed. ... Verizon is spending an average of $817 per home passed to wire neighborhoods for its FiOS fiber optic network and another $716 for equipment and labor in each home that subscribes, according to Sanford C. Bernstein & Company. ... The experience in Japan suggests that the major cable systems in the United States might be able to increase the speed of their broadband service by five to 10 times right away. They might not need to charge much more for it than they do now and they would still make as much money."
That's just...ridiculous. No wonder they have such enormous speeds compared to the US. At least the States get a decent speed though. Here in Australia you tend to pay through the nose for anything more than 1Mb/s
Of course verizon is going to milk its customers for every penny they can squeeze out. That what US telco's do.
Remember the bright star of ISDN? Yeah. Priced out of existence when simply selling in volume could have made them a mint.
Verizon! Bring me a 100Mbps line.
And what is the population density in the areas where they are installing this $20/house fiber optic? Do they need to trench through miles of yards to get the lines there? And how much time and resources do they have to exert fighting the local dictators in each and every state/county before they can even begin? A straight "it costs $x vs $y" comparison without looking at all the factors is useless.
You mean in the US it's all about making money? It's not about trying to do the rollout as efficiently as possible? Especially when they can repeatedly charge the customer for it? I'm shocked. Ahhhh, the joys of a hyper-capitalist society.
It is right across the street and has been for three months. I watched while they put it on the poles. There is a coil of fiber hanging for each building. I'm planning on buying their triple play, who wants comcast. The fiber is not dark, many houses get it already on my street. My availability, not so much. They are not doing it right.
All your database are belong to U.S.
THe cost on this is actually pretty simple. I have been living in Japan for 10 years and yes we do enjoy some really incredible bandwidth here. Most of the population lives in very condensed areas. Greater Tokyo has about 30 million people in an area the size of LA... so rolling out the latest technology in one of the most wealthy and densely populated cities in the world is well... nearly easy if you can say that. Cell phones are the same way. Docomo, Softbank, AU etc.. rolled 3g out YEARS... before the US, simple put because logistically they can. Japan is 2/3 the size of California with 45% of the population of the entire US. 80% of the country is mountainous (ie.. nobody lives there) and half the countries population is centered in 4 or 5 cities. Tokyo, Osaka, Nagoya, Sapporo.. Heaven for Technology fans. In a nutshell, you can roll out new technology fast and cheap because the distances between hubs are short, and the overall physical breadth and width of the network is small.
Don't you have telephone poles in America?
Deleted
They're using the existing cable network, and sending their customers upgraded modems ($60 a pop) that can handle up to 160mpbs. No digging, no rewiring.
While it makes for nice, simplistic headlines (and even more simplistic marketing - along with unfulfillable expectations that just cause resentment and ill-feeling later) it's largely pointless. Far better for the providers to come up with a balanced delivery, than to go around having to make excuses for who someone's gigabit/second link is only running at 1MByte/s in real life.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
What I wonder is, are companies like Cox pulling maneuvers similar to "Hollywood Accounting" to make their end costs really high, which would appear to justify jacking everyone's rates up, but under the table they're paying themselves off (via their affiliate or otherwise owned companies) and turning an insane profit in the big picture?
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
I question that. Here in Sweden I know of at least one company (bredband2) connecting private consumers at 1 gbit.
Did you read the article? I'm guessing no from your response.
The whole point of it was Japan used existing cable lines and upgraded it to docsis 3, which is cheap to do. There is no running of new cable to the highrises vs the suburbs. The article attributed the US's slow uptake of docsis 3 to lack of competition and fear of losing traditional cable services to streaming video. Not cost of adding new wire or running phone, which doesn't make any sense anyway because VoIP runs on cable just fine. The excessive cost is FiOS which is running new wire, but if the cable company wasn't asleep and upgraded their system before FiOS would be dead in the water.
>Most of Japan is high rises
>Also, a lot of the buildings in the US are older than those in Japan
You've clearly never ever been to Japan.
--- Little Atomo - The Amazing Thinking Robot from Atomocom! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIP9KisHi4k
The article is badly written, it's true. However, the issue the article is trying to make clear is that there is a cheap way of providing much faster service: by upgrading cable service. Upgrading cable service doesn't require new cable, or work in the streets; it just requires new equipment at the central office and new modems for the customer.
The reason that the cable companies don't do that, apparently, is because in the U.S. they were granted poorly regulated monopolies. Therefore they can 1) lie to customers, 2) give poor service, and 3) give slow service, and still raise prices.
That's something that we all get charged on our bills for the federally mandated fund that's supposed to be used to build out broadband infrastructure.
Why aren't they building out their infrastructure?
Why, instead of building upgrading to the highest speed available, are they only upgrading to the next increment?
It's the mentality of these industry giants. They spend as little as little as possible only when absolutely necessary. But they charge out the ass for it.
Comcast has the capability of providing 100Mbit service with their docsis 3.0 upgrades. Will they provide 100Mbit service? No. Because it makes more sense to charge double the normal rate for 20Mbit service.
They will probably provide 50Mbit service also. They will charge $300 for 50Mbit. Capitalism does not like innovation.
They're using their grammar skills there.
Are we really surprised that LARGE American companies keep whining that its too hard or expensive to offer high quality service that their customers want?
We are into 40 years of Detroit automakers largely ignoring what their customers want. As a result they were already in serious trouble before the current financial mess. Mean while Toyota and Honda were giving people what they wanted. High quality reasonably priced cars in the sizes and shapes people wanted. When we come out the other end of this mess its likely only Ford will survive and hopefully they will be more responsive to market demands.
I just hope someone American or foreign, comes in and shakes up the ISP/Cable/Phone market here the way that the Japanese car companies did the automotive industry.
Think Deeply.
The CEO of J:Com makes exactly this point in the article if you read it all the way to the end. Maybe you missed it?
In the States (aka U.S. of A), tax payer money has been thrown at industries with neither oversight nor review of the lessons learned. For example, American [U.S.] industry, the eighty mile per gallon car resulted in the worst outcome. We got over sized SUVs and the Bummer!, albeit with the long term promise of pristine hydrogen powered electrics vehicles that we will probably never see. However, it scared the Japanese into action where without direct subsidies they were and are better positioned to produce vehicles with superior economy. Then we financed several build outs for the Internet, that resulted in the Telcos demanding more return for their efforts. Now we are savng the Banks and the Brokerage houses that caused our economic disaster. It is long past the time that the guilty should pay, with a reduced life style, which they were never entitled despite their fondest self regard and over estimated self worth.
[question: why aren't the extrans working?]
Having spent time in Asia I've come to find that Americans wouldn't recognize a free market if it bit them on the ass. And yet they rant and rant that capitalism is screwing us. No, improper regulation is. All this regulation has stifled competition and made it exceedingly difficult for anyone new to enter the market and be competitive.
These issues could be easily addressed, but with the government heading towards even more regulation things are only going to get worse.
This is why government mandated duopolies by the cable companies are retarded. From TFA:
Mr. Fries added another: Fear. Other cable operators, he said, are concerned that not only will prices fall, but that the super-fast service will encourage customers to watch video on the Web and drop their cable service.
Rather, Verizon is rolling out FiOS, because it has no other option. VDSL technology over old twisted-pair phone line has peaked, it has no choice but to roll out FiOS if it wants to keep up with cable.
Your comparison (and the articles) is therefore very foolish. The real question I have is why Comcast is not rolling out DOCSIS 3 - wait, actually I don't have that question, because they are already.
Man I hate misinformed articles and postings... I am not even an American and I know about this.