That's a ridiculous statement and an indication of the extent to which we in the (extended) tech community often have our heads in the clouds.
Sorry to be off-topic, but I've spent the day trying to figure out how to shoehorn another 10,000 low income kids into a subsidized summer daycamp program without a budget increase. Issues of class and disposable income are in the front of my mind at the moment.
Ok, you're wrong. Your basic points are right, but your reasoning is off.
The reason that rural areas aren't served is threefold:
Density - fewer people served per switch means higher costs to serve the same number of people. Higher costs and lower customer numbers mean lower return, which matters even to the less profit-driven smaller service providers. Add in the increased costs of maintaining connections over long distances, and it doesn't make sense for a big provider to spend its limited capital resources on that area. A smaller provider will face the same steep infrastructure costs, but without the more-profitable businesses to subsidize the build up.
Knowledge - quite simply, the talent needed to put together and then maintain an infrastructure for broadband is tougher to acquire and keep in these same lower-density areas. Contracting the work out is an option, but even those costs will be higher due to transit time, number of locations to be serviced, etc.
National broadband provider models - to provide the service in lower density areas, price will almost certainly be higher than in urban areas where, as a previous poster put it, a single switch (or, really, location) can handle 1000 customers (and lots more, in fact). The problem with this is that the national providers have no means to factor this in to their ~$50 pricing models for other areas, and so choose (wisely) not to provide service. A smaller provider may be able to pull a service together, but it faces a perception problem when it tries - by necessity - to charge twice or more the commonly percieved appropriate fee.
The dual-service companies mentioned by someone above might be able to pull things together, consolidate on to one wire, lower prices slightly, offer new services and take it to the bank, but that's a ton of work and still requires the initial infrastructure investment they may not have the means to make in the first place.
It'll take time, but it'll happen - we just need some creative minds to work out the kinks.
Slashdot Mirror
"Most kids now go to college with laptops..."
That's a ridiculous statement and an indication of the extent to which we in the (extended) tech community often have our heads in the clouds.
Sorry to be off-topic, but I've spent the day trying to figure out how to shoehorn another 10,000 low income kids into a subsidized summer daycamp program without a budget increase. Issues of class and disposable income are in the front of my mind at the moment.
Um, they did?
e m& item=2003816966
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewIt
Ok, you're wrong. Your basic points are right, but your reasoning is off.
The reason that rural areas aren't served is threefold:
Density - fewer people served per switch means higher costs to serve the same number of people. Higher costs and lower customer numbers mean lower return, which matters even to the less profit-driven smaller service providers. Add in the increased costs of maintaining connections over long distances, and it doesn't make sense for a big provider to spend its limited capital resources on that area. A smaller provider will face the same steep infrastructure costs, but without the more-profitable businesses to subsidize the build up.
Knowledge - quite simply, the talent needed to put together and then maintain an infrastructure for broadband is tougher to acquire and keep in these same lower-density areas. Contracting the work out is an option, but even those costs will be higher due to transit time, number of locations to be serviced, etc.
National broadband provider models - to provide the service in lower density areas, price will almost certainly be higher than in urban areas where, as a previous poster put it, a single switch (or, really, location) can handle 1000 customers (and lots more, in fact). The problem with this is that the national providers have no means to factor this in to their ~$50 pricing models for other areas, and so choose (wisely) not to provide service. A smaller provider may be able to pull a service together, but it faces a perception problem when it tries - by necessity - to charge twice or more the commonly percieved appropriate fee.
The dual-service companies mentioned by someone above might be able to pull things together, consolidate on to one wire, lower prices slightly, offer new services and take it to the bank, but that's a ton of work and still requires the initial infrastructure investment they may not have the means to make in the first place.
It'll take time, but it'll happen - we just need some creative minds to work out the kinks.