4 ms·
The problem is you're basing your argument solely on the physical act of running cable/wires everywhere. When you look at the cost of just hiring a crew to dig
by bronco21016 6y ago
The problem is you're basing your argument solely on the physical act of running cable/wires everywhere. When you look at the cost of just hiring a crew to dig the ground or string wire on a pole you are correct. It's significantly cheaper and more reliable.
However, add in the human factor, government. The mess of rules, regulations, and right-of-way make it considerably more expensive to run wires everywhere.
- bryanlarsen 6y agoThe cost of hiring a crew to dig up the ground runs to hundreds of dollars per foot. At $1MM for a satellite that can serve thousands of people is a lot cheaper.
- wolco 6y agoIf they all lived in the same location. If the cost is hundreds per square foot and each customer is 1000ft away from each other than thecosts become hundreds of thousands per address. Line of sight or cell tower might work but when it doesn't a satellite will.
- bargl 6y agoI worked at a GEO company. They have a HUGE department just to work with governments to buy or keep their spectrum. The rules and regulations for spectrum are insane, and not just build this cable here in my county/state/country, but now this beam goes across borders what do I do? Oh wait, this region is contested by China/India we have to sell differently to each government. Cost of labor => It's a calculation of how many people can be served per 1 mile (any unit) of cable. If that number is 20, cable wins. If it's 5, hotspot may win (which also uses cable FWIW). If it's 0.5 then these new satellites win. 5G may try to take more market from ISPs but they know they'll have to innovate to keep customers. I can 100% see cell towers being cheaper than cable, but not in every situation. It's about supplementing not replacing infrastructure.