4 ms·

That'd be fine if this was just voice. Unfortunately, they're also failing to maintain landline internet, which is a much bigger deal. You can't do your homewor

by saulrh 11y ago

That'd be fine if this was just voice. Unfortunately, they're also failing to maintain landline internet, which is a much bigger deal. You can't do your homework on a phone. You can't download updates over a phone's internet connection. You can't run a game console over a phone's internet. You can't get print forms or paperwork with a phone. It's not just internet access that's a requirement - it's usable internet access, and phone internet is not incredibly usable. Tethering is an option, but it often costs something like $30 a month, and even then phone plans, even the $70-a-month 'unlimited' ones, start hitting caps at 5gb or 10gb. What the fuck can you do with 5gb? You can wipe that out with software updates alone. Offering cellular is unacceptable. If they can't put in fiber, they need to maintain the copper. (source: comcast took three weeks to fix the internet in our apartment before we just terminated our plan and switched to another provider - lucky use we weren't fucked into only having a single option - spent a week trying to survive on phone internet before putting in the work to do tethering)

rhino369 11y ago
It's very possible that it's not possible to deploy fiber profitably. Remember, Verizon doesn't get exclusive franchise rights to fiber or ISP service. When Verizon rolled out FIOS to areas it thought were going to be most profitable, they ended up not making nearly as much as they thought they would. Turns out people stuck with the cable company. FIOS only get 40% of people in FIOS coverage to actually sign up. That's why they stopped their FIOS expansion. It was barely profitable in the easy and rich areas. No way is it going to be profitable in poor and rural areas. In fact, we've always had to subsidize rural and poor areas. The deal was originally that AT&T--which split into the current AT&T and Verizon,etc.--got to have exclusive telephone rights in exchange for making sure everyone got a connection. AT&T was legally entitled to a certain profit margin. Now governments are expecting the same sorts of benefits without giving Verizon and AT&T the same sort quid pro quo. And they are finding out that nobody is going to build a new fiber network to rural and poor areas. In fact, Google Fiber is capitalizing on it. The biggest concession Google gets before deploying Fiber, is that they can pick and choose which neighborhoods get Fiber. So they can cherry pick profitable customers. I think one great compromise is providing LTE coverage without tyrannical data caps. There is no reason to data cap traffic during non-peak periods. And you don't need to tether a phone, there are wifi routers that work on LTE.
- lhc- 11y ago
  If it isn't profitable, maybe they shouldn't have signed contractual agreements and made promises to the govt related to their buildout. They've already gained large benefits from promising to build out their network; it hardly seems unfair to expect them to follow through on their end of the bargain.
- saulrh 11y ago
  > It's very possible that it's not possible to deploy fiber profitably. So, I have an honest question about this: why is fiber so much more expensive than copper? Is it just that the boxes the ends are bigger and more expensive? I've always heard that digging up land and running wires is nasty, but if that's the case, how were phone lines ever profitable without costing $100 a month? > I think one great compromise is providing LTE coverage without tyrannical data caps. There is no reason to data cap traffic during non-peak periods. And you don't need to tether a phone, there are wifi routers that work on LTE. I think that I'd like to make a modification there - I can agree on capping _bandwidth_ during peak periods. _Total transfer quantity_ should never be capped ever. Unless a significant portion of the cost of an internet connection is caused by a difference in expenses running the hardware at 75% utilization instead of 50% utilization, which I kind of doubt is the case. I also don't know if we'd ever get it; the wireless providers love claiming that they're out of capacity and can't even support bigger pictures on imgur, much less people shoving Windows Update through their networks. That said, yes, an uncapped LTE modem with wifi router and some quality-of-service guarantees would be an excellent compromise.
  - massysett 11y ago
    Elvis Presley's phone bill for local service in 1973 was $134.19. A simple CPI inflation calculator says this would be over $700 today. http://www.elvispresleymusic.com.au/pictures/1973-april-2-phone-bill.html http://www.elvispresleymusic.com.au/pictures/1973-april-2-ph...
  - ghaff 11y ago
    In principle I agree with your basic point and it applies to wired Internet too. However as a practical matter, you probably either need more capacity in many places--including places that don't want more cell towers. Or you end up either bumping people off at peak times or throttling everyone to unusable levels.

by saulrh 11y ago

rhino369 11y ago

It's very possible that it's not possible to deploy fiber profitably. Remember, Verizon doesn't get exclusive franchise rights to fiber or ISP service. When Verizon rolled out FIOS to areas it thought were going to be most profitable, they ended up not making nearly as much as they thought they would. Turns out people stuck with the cable company. FIOS only get 40% of people in FIOS coverage to actually sign up. That's why they stopped their FIOS expansion. It was barely profitable in the easy and rich areas. No way is it going to be profitable in poor and rural areas. In fact, we've always had to subsidize rural and poor areas. The deal was originally that AT&T--which split into the current AT&T and Verizon,etc.--got to have exclusive telephone rights in exchange for making sure everyone got a connection. AT&T was legally entitled to a certain profit margin. Now governments are expecting the same sorts of benefits without giving Verizon and AT&T the same sort quid pro quo. And they are finding out that nobody is going to build a new fiber network to rural and poor areas. In fact, Google Fiber is capitalizing on it. The biggest concession Google gets before deploying Fiber, is that they can pick and choose which neighborhoods get Fiber. So they can cherry pick profitable customers. I think one great compromise is providing LTE coverage without tyrannical data caps. There is no reason to data cap traffic during non-peak periods. And you don't need to tether a phone, there are wifi routers that work on LTE.

lhc- 11y ago
If it isn't profitable, maybe they shouldn't have signed contractual agreements and made promises to the govt related to their buildout. They've already gained large benefits from promising to build out their network; it hardly seems unfair to expect them to follow through on their end of the bargain.
saulrh 11y ago
> It's very possible that it's not possible to deploy fiber profitably. So, I have an honest question about this: why is fiber so much more expensive than copper? Is it just that the boxes the ends are bigger and more expensive? I've always heard that digging up land and running wires is nasty, but if that's the case, how were phone lines ever profitable without costing $100 a month? > I think one great compromise is providing LTE coverage without tyrannical data caps. There is no reason to data cap traffic during non-peak periods. And you don't need to tether a phone, there are wifi routers that work on LTE. I think that I'd like to make a modification there - I can agree on capping _bandwidth_ during peak periods. _Total transfer quantity_ should never be capped ever. Unless a significant portion of the cost of an internet connection is caused by a difference in expenses running the hardware at 75% utilization instead of 50% utilization, which I kind of doubt is the case. I also don't know if we'd ever get it; the wireless providers love claiming that they're out of capacity and can't even support bigger pictures on imgur, much less people shoving Windows Update through their networks. That said, yes, an uncapped LTE modem with wifi router and some quality-of-service guarantees would be an excellent compromise.
- massysett 11y ago
  Elvis Presley's phone bill for local service in 1973 was $134.19. A simple CPI inflation calculator says this would be over $700 today. http://www.elvispresleymusic.com.au/pictures/1973-april-2-phone-bill.html http://www.elvispresleymusic.com.au/pictures/1973-april-2-ph...
- ghaff 11y ago
  In principle I agree with your basic point and it applies to wired Internet too. However as a practical matter, you probably either need more capacity in many places--including places that don't want more cell towers. Or you end up either bumping people off at peak times or throttling everyone to unusable levels.