6 ms·

> That's the problem, isn't it? It costs too much. Is it though? Or is it that there is not enough profit for someone to make from running fiber to every home

> That's the problem, isn't it? It costs too much. Is it though? Or is it that there is not enough profit for someone to make from running fiber to every home? To be clear I’m not trying to lead with the question but actually ask something and that the difference might be useful.

cortesoft 3y ago
Profit isn't the only reason things cost to much. There is also just the fact that some things take too many resources to do. Take the healthcare example, of cancer that we have a cure for but costs $2 million so no one gets it. The instinctive response is to say that is horrible, and that we should spend whatever it takes to cure someone... but should we? Even if we said profit wasn't an issue, scarce resources still have to be allocated. Time and resources spent doing one thing means less to do something else. Imagine a cure for cancer that required 10000 people to work 1000 hours each to produce... surely that would be too much to be worth it, right? Those are hours we can't do something else. Even if we decided no amount of hours or resources were too many, we are still limited by the people we have and the resources available. We simply don't have enough to do everything. So yes, maybe we can fix ANYTHING, but we certainly can't fix EVERYTHING
Gigachad 3y ago
That’s the same as it costs too much.
- jnsaff2 3y ago
  No it's not. The utility for the users is the same. The lobbying power trying to make that choice is completely different.
- quickthrower2 3y ago
  For governments and infrastructure they don’t need to make a profit they can subsidise. That is somewhat the point of a government. Costs too much is still an objection but “no immediate profit” isn’t. Whether that is true for fibre, I don’t know it is a complex topic.
  - ip26 3y ago
    Subsidize - with taxpayer dollars.
    - quickthrower2 3y ago
      Yes, but they get that back later on with all the productivity increases. Or to put it another way - think of how much the government could save in taxes if it built no infrastructure at all. You want electricity? Get a generator. You want roads? Pay a new toll every 1km as you go through various private lands.
      - ip26 3y ago
        You have to (attempt to) quantify those productivity increases. There are an unlimited number of nice things government could spend on, but limited budget. It happens that fiber passed muster. Other things don’t. (The productivity value of fiber can be estimated with a revenue model based on subscriber fees)
Scarblac 3y ago
There are homes to where it can be done profitably, homes to where it can't. It can probably be done profitably to every home, but it's even more profitable to do it to only the easier homes. Collective action could make a law that only allows companies to lay fiber if they do it to every home.
ip26 3y ago
Some small towns have started building fiber to every home that want it, as a public utility. It has confirmed cost is the only question that voters care about. In one example it cost something like $200M for a population of 150,000. That’s $1.3k per person. Good luck getting the taxpayer to sign up for that without a clear revenue model. It’s being done, but not as some kind of blind “hey you know what would be great” leap.
- michaelmrose 3y ago
  Wouldn't the revenue model be something like $50-$100 per household for the next 20 years to cover principle and interest? Assuming 50k households and 85% uptake and 50 per month is 510M 100 is about a billion.
  - jdietrich 3y ago
    98% of Americans have access to fixed-line broadband, but only 62% actually have it. A significant proportion are fine with just having mobile and a small but fairly stable minority simply have no interest in using the internet at all. There are certainly some remaining connection gaps in remote rural communities, but universal fiber coverage is the least cost-effective solution to that problem. https://itif.org/publications/2022/12/05/state-of-us-broadband-in-2022-reassessing-the-whole-picture/ https://itif.org/publications/2022/12/05/state-of-us-broadba...
    - michaelmrose 3y ago
      I had a conversation as an agent with a customer wanting to cut internet access in favor of just having people use their phones. She was confused by the fact that she thought the experience she had by using her fixed wired internet to provide wifi access to her phones was automagically a function of the devices themselves. While slightly slow walking the process and explaining the disadvantages of this I manually shut down the connection to the modem without actually disconnecting the internet service. Her kids had successfully vetoed the operation before we could complete the disconnection. Pew says of those who rely only on a smartphone rather than a broadband connection only 45% feel a phone does everything they need was true and only 23% said that was the most import reason. Other popular reasons included unacceptable speed, cost, and perhaps most relevant the 22% that said other options simply weren't available. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/06/13/mobile-technology-and-home-broadband-2019/ https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/06/13/mobile-techn... I don't think its a stretch to imagine that uptake of fast fiber might be slightly higher than the 73% (not 62) with Home Broadband internet given that many have options that are both piss poor and expensive.

cortesoft 3y ago

Profit isn't the only reason things cost to much. There is also just the fact that some things take too many resources to do. Take the healthcare example, of cancer that we have a cure for but costs $2 million so no one gets it. The instinctive response is to say that is horrible, and that we should spend whatever it takes to cure someone... but should we? Even if we said profit wasn't an issue, scarce resources still have to be allocated. Time and resources spent doing one thing means less to do something else. Imagine a cure for cancer that required 10000 people to work 1000 hours each to produce... surely that would be too much to be worth it, right? Those are hours we can't do something else. Even if we decided no amount of hours or resources were too many, we are still limited by the people we have and the resources available. We simply don't have enough to do everything. So yes, maybe we can fix ANYTHING, but we certainly can't fix EVERYTHING

Gigachad 3y ago

That’s the same as it costs too much.

jnsaff2 3y ago
No it's not. The utility for the users is the same. The lobbying power trying to make that choice is completely different.
quickthrower2 3y ago
For governments and infrastructure they don’t need to make a profit they can subsidise. That is somewhat the point of a government. Costs too much is still an objection but “no immediate profit” isn’t. Whether that is true for fibre, I don’t know it is a complex topic.
- ip26 3y ago
  Subsidize - with taxpayer dollars.
  - quickthrower2 3y ago
    Yes, but they get that back later on with all the productivity increases. Or to put it another way - think of how much the government could save in taxes if it built no infrastructure at all. You want electricity? Get a generator. You want roads? Pay a new toll every 1km as you go through various private lands.
    - ip26 3y ago
      You have to (attempt to) quantify those productivity increases. There are an unlimited number of nice things government could spend on, but limited budget. It happens that fiber passed muster. Other things don’t. (The productivity value of fiber can be estimated with a revenue model based on subscriber fees)

Scarblac 3y ago

There are homes to where it can be done profitably, homes to where it can't. It can probably be done profitably to every home, but it's even more profitable to do it to only the easier homes. Collective action could make a law that only allows companies to lay fiber if they do it to every home.

ip26 3y ago

Some small towns have started building fiber to every home that want it, as a public utility. It has confirmed cost is the only question that voters care about. In one example it cost something like $200M for a population of 150,000. That’s $1.3k per person. Good luck getting the taxpayer to sign up for that without a clear revenue model. It’s being done, but not as some kind of blind “hey you know what would be great” leap.

michaelmrose 3y ago
Wouldn't the revenue model be something like $50-$100 per household for the next 20 years to cover principle and interest? Assuming 50k households and 85% uptake and 50 per month is 510M 100 is about a billion.
- jdietrich 3y ago
  98% of Americans have access to fixed-line broadband, but only 62% actually have it. A significant proportion are fine with just having mobile and a small but fairly stable minority simply have no interest in using the internet at all. There are certainly some remaining connection gaps in remote rural communities, but universal fiber coverage is the least cost-effective solution to that problem. https://itif.org/publications/2022/12/05/state-of-us-broadband-in-2022-reassessing-the-whole-picture/ https://itif.org/publications/2022/12/05/state-of-us-broadba...
  - michaelmrose 3y ago
    I had a conversation as an agent with a customer wanting to cut internet access in favor of just having people use their phones. She was confused by the fact that she thought the experience she had by using her fixed wired internet to provide wifi access to her phones was automagically a function of the devices themselves. While slightly slow walking the process and explaining the disadvantages of this I manually shut down the connection to the modem without actually disconnecting the internet service. Her kids had successfully vetoed the operation before we could complete the disconnection. Pew says of those who rely only on a smartphone rather than a broadband connection only 45% feel a phone does everything they need was true and only 23% said that was the most import reason. Other popular reasons included unacceptable speed, cost, and perhaps most relevant the 22% that said other options simply weren't available. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/06/13/mobile-technology-and-home-broadband-2019/ https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/06/13/mobile-techn... I don't think its a stretch to imagine that uptake of fast fiber might be slightly higher than the 73% (not 62) with Home Broadband internet given that many have options that are both piss poor and expensive.