4 ms·
>Such requirements kill fiber development. Laying fiber is expensive, and having to lay it through neighborhoods where most people won’t or can’t subscribe just
by tw04 3y ago
>Such requirements kill fiber development. Laying fiber is expensive, and having to lay it through neighborhoods where most people won’t or can’t subscribe just increases the price for everyone.
Odd, laying fiber was deemed "too expensive" to lay in a community where we have a family cabin. Instead, someone formed a co-op. Everyone is getting wired, and the speeds:price is SIGNIFICANTLY less than Comcast, with symmetric up/down to boot.
I appreciate you've got a job to do and a talk track, but it's simply not accurate. What you MEAN to say is: wiring everyone in a community results in a margin profile that's below what large Telco executives find acceptable, so they focus on areas with high adoption rates and low deployment costs and tell community's that it's just "too expensive" to do anything else.
- jjoonathan 3y agoI wish we gave companies even 1/10th the flak that we give people for acting entitled. This right here is a perfect example, but it happens all the time.
- gwright 3y agoYour two examples leave some questions. You seem to be saying that your cabin community was able to find a solution that would not be acceptable to a large telco. Why isn't that OK? Why should the large company be forced to do something they don't want to do if, by your example, other organizations are capable of servicing those communities? To rephrase the question: What, if anything, prevents smaller organizations or non-profits or niche companies from servicing areas that large telcos will only do through regulatory mandates? Can the business/regulatory climate be improved to facilitate these smaller organizations? Are there existing regulations (for example access to poles or conduits) in some areas that block smaller organizations?
- jjoonathan 3y ago> Why isn't that OK? Ask the telcos lobbying to stop it. That's the problem.
- tw04 3y ago>You seem to be saying that your cabin community was able to find a solution that would not be acceptable to a large telco. Why isn't that OK? Why should the large company be forced to do something they don't want to do if, by your example, other organizations are capable of servicing those communities? Because they're also actively lobbying to kill any local co-op formation. Successfully in many states. They tried here and got shot down, then proclaimed they were going to build out fiber themselves in the co-op's targeted service area (they didn't). There are states where they were successful in getting laws passed preventing "wasteful government spending on broadband networks" - the end result of this will be people who literally have no possible way to EVER get broadband.
- tivert 3y ago> Because they're also actively lobbying to kill any local co-op formation. Successfully in many states. How exactly do they do that?
- dragonwriter 3y agoI suspect the same way PG&E has fought public power expansion: channel corporate propaganda through astroturf taxpayer groups misleading about the costs.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y agoIn all the various ways that corporations manage to get legislation passed. These corporations are not stopping local co-op formation. They are lobbying for laws that severely limit (and in some cases, prevent) their ability to operate.
- tivert 3y ago> They are lobbying for laws that severely limit (and in some cases, prevent) their ability to operate. That's what I'm curious about. What's in those laws they're lobbying for?
- 3y ago
- rayiner 3y agoSure, small co-ops can have cost structures for smaller projects big companies often cannot match. That’s true of any kind of business. That doesn’t change my point. Again, you don’t need to rely on assumptions about the motivations of “large Telco executives.” Look at what Google did with Fiber.
- f-securus 3y agoPointing to google as a positive example hasn’t made since in quiet some time.
- flylikeabanana 3y ago> Pointing to google as a positive example hasn’t made sense in quite some time. I don't usually get pedantic about typos, but the twofer here really made it hard to understand what you were saying
- f-securus 3y agoI'm ignorant. What is incorrect?
- lambertsimnel 3y agoLooks like "since" vs "sense" or "quiet" vs "quite" I didn't notice either until flylikeabanana pointed it out
- f-securus 3y agoHah, I was reading his quoted response looking for the problem and didn't realize he changed the spellings in the quote. Got it, thanks.
- rayiner 3y agoWhat does “positive” mean in this context? What’s relevant is that Google has a tremendous financial incentive to prove fiber can be built cheaply, because it has a much more profitable product built on top of broadband. And they couldn’t do it.