3 ms·

Yes, that's what I said. But you can hook up 5 times the customers at that same cost.

• cobookman 10y ago
  How do you hook those 5 customers up? Are you doing fiber to the curb. If so then you might as well give them each 1gbps as fiber is cheap. Now if you do what webpass did in sf, you'd avoid the cost of laying fiber to those 5 customers, but still provide them internet connections albeit at a lower speed. I think google found out, why would you lay fiber to the home. And is re-thinking their plans.
• toast0 10y ago
  I'm sure 100 mbps (or whatever) fiber has cheaper equipment on both sides, so if you ran that instead of 1g, you'd be spend the same money and build out to more customers, but I would be shocked if that was five times the customers. Most of the time, expense and headache is spent in getting sites for your equipment, surveying and planning the runs, and getting access to run the fiber near the homes (poles or underground). Running the drops to the homes is also time consuming. You might as well spend a bit more on equipment and run 1G, so you you're competitive with what the incumbents will upgrade to next. Edit to add: The bandwidth out to the internet from the wherever the access goes to really isn't a major cost factor. Access from a decent exchange point isn't that expensive, and you can oversubscribe by a significant factor.
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• NotSammyHagar 10y ago
  No, the vast majority of the cost is digging the trenches and installing at the house. The cost once that is done is small, the difference between 200 and 1 gig is not that much over 1000 houses.