2 ms·
It really shouldn't cost /that/ much more. If there were actual competition in a sane market the price would be practically whatever share of the electricity f
by mjevans 9y ago
It really shouldn't cost /that/ much more. If there were actual competition in a sane market the price would be practically whatever share of the electricity for powering the network infrastructure along the path plus some part replacement overhead and a small profit margin.
That's why the natural monopoly of the last mile should be owned by the municipality (the people in the area) and competition should begin at designated peering points where backbone access can be brokered in an actually competitive way.
- rayiner 9y agoWhy do you think it shouldn't cost a lot more? A consumer-grade fiber service will put 16-32 passive fiber strands on a single GPON node and some multiple of that on each 10 gbps network port in the intermediate routers that eventually dump into the backbone. If you're selling dedicated bandwidth, you need active fiber out to the customer site, and your brutally expensive core routers can only have 5 customers per port instead of 50. Moreover, there is actually quite a bit of competition in the dedicated bandwidth business line space. We were recently shopping around our contract at work and had at least 3-4 options IIRC. Having the municipality own the infrastructure out to the peering point is a terrible idea. There's a lot of very expensive hardware between the fiber strand going to the customer site and the peering point.