4 ms·

According to NRTC [1] fiber deployments to the premises cost approximately $800/deployment. Ignoring uptake, operational expenses etc that’s $13/mo per deployme

According to NRTC [1] fiber deployments to the premises cost approximately $800/deployment. Ignoring uptake, operational expenses etc that’s $13/mo per deployment to recover cost in 5 years. I have no idea what the average consumer pays their residential provider but I would estimate it’s over $100/mo on average. It seems like it would be fairly easy to get return in 5 years. These are numbers for fiber. [1] https://www.nrtc.coop/rural-connect/cost-of-rural-ftth-deployment-is-dropping https://www.nrtc.coop/rural-connect/cost-of-rural-ftth-deplo...

rainbowmverse 9y ago
Less of that three digit cable bill goes to the company than you might expect. Content providers don't give it away for free. ESPN is notorious for eating a huge % of the bill.
- notmetoday3426 9y ago
  Not just content, also peering and data transit; you pay at the IPX, or you have no internez for selling. You need a customer services organisation - perhaps minimal, but people will write to the CEO so you need some way of handling contact. You need billing, you need security, you need repair and diagnostics, and you need capital ready to meet unexpected expenses, like storm damage, or power surges. Oh Oh I forgot, power, power costs also. But true point: none of the above is competitive in the current market. To compete you need content, many customers are willing to pay for football. Some customers don't give a toss about football, but not enough customers don't care about content and do care about good internet to make things work. Believe me - it makes me sad.
- loooooooooooool 9y ago
  And the fuckers will not sell you internet without you also buying their useless phone and/or TV services...
wahern 9y ago
In San Francisco Sonic charges $50 + taxes for 100Mb/s fiber service, and they're profitable. IIRC, the CEO of Sonic has hinted their connection cost per house is closer to $400 (at least during a roll-out in an SF suburb), though I can't find any references. They forced AT&T's hand, which began rolling out their service in the city about a year later. AT&T charges $70 or more, I think. It's cheaper to do this stuff than the big companies let on. The problem is that they can make even _more_ money investing in other services and products, like cellular and cable TV. Worse, fiber eats into their cable TV profits and jeopardizes their wet dreams about 5G cellular data plans. [1] It's $40 + $10 router rental, or $50 if you have your own router. But $50 for the service alone isn't promotional, whereas the $40 + rental is technically promotional and might become $50 + rental down the road.

rainbowmverse 9y ago

Less of that three digit cable bill goes to the company than you might expect. Content providers don't give it away for free. ESPN is notorious for eating a huge % of the bill.

notmetoday3426 9y ago
Not just content, also peering and data transit; you pay at the IPX, or you have no internez for selling. You need a customer services organisation - perhaps minimal, but people will write to the CEO so you need some way of handling contact. You need billing, you need security, you need repair and diagnostics, and you need capital ready to meet unexpected expenses, like storm damage, or power surges. Oh Oh I forgot, power, power costs also. But true point: none of the above is competitive in the current market. To compete you need content, many customers are willing to pay for football. Some customers don't give a toss about football, but not enough customers don't care about content and do care about good internet to make things work. Believe me - it makes me sad.
loooooooooooool 9y ago
And the fuckers will not sell you internet without you also buying their useless phone and/or TV services...

wahern 9y ago

In San Francisco Sonic charges $50 + taxes for 100Mb/s fiber service, and they're profitable. IIRC, the CEO of Sonic has hinted their connection cost per house is closer to $400 (at least during a roll-out in an SF suburb), though I can't find any references. They forced AT&T's hand, which began rolling out their service in the city about a year later. AT&T charges $70 or more, I think. It's cheaper to do this stuff than the big companies let on. The problem is that they can make even _more_ money investing in other services and products, like cellular and cable TV. Worse, fiber eats into their cable TV profits and jeopardizes their wet dreams about 5G cellular data plans. [1] It's $40 + $10 router rental, or $50 if you have your own router. But $50 for the service alone isn't promotional, whereas the $40 + rental is technically promotional and might become $50 + rental down the road.