4 ms·
It's cheaper per capita to roll out fibre to 50 million people than to 5 million; no-one can seriously argue otherwise. This alone shows how broken the system i
by Dah00n 5y ago
It's cheaper per capita to roll out fibre to 50 million people than to 5 million; no-one can seriously argue otherwise. This alone shows how broken the system is. Not only broadband but also healthcare and other services should be extremely cheap and well tested in the US in locations with a high density of people. That it is often as broken in high density areas as in rural areas baffles the mind. As a Scandinavian I'm often chocked how the US isn't number one. It really should be.
- iptrans 5y ago> It's cheaper per capita to roll out fibre to 50 million people than to 5 million; This assumes an awful lot of things. If the average number of linear feet constructed grows when going from 5 million to 50 million then the cost per capita isn’t going to decrease. What going from 5 million to 50 million enables is averaging high cost builds over a larger subscriber base resulting in affordable prices for more people. Note that this will not however decrease costs overall.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Ekaros 5y agoLiving in sparsely populated fenno-scandinavian country I really never understood how badly others can do things... Like Germany and USA? Germany has no excuses, and USA does have some large areas, but outside those?