4 ms·
For a new build or overhead wiring, it's a trivial cost that is easily recouped. For buried infrastructure where the coaxial cable company already sells intern
by lotsofpulp 2mo ago
For a new build or overhead wiring, it's a trivial cost that is easily recouped.
For buried infrastructure where the coaxial cable company already sells internet, you will almost never recoup your investment to bury new fiber and run it to all the homes. You can have the superior product, but insufficient people will pay enough more than the existing coaxial cable prices.
- nemomarx 2mo agoI wonder why companies do run new fiber in the US in cities, given all this? I got underground fiber direct to the basement of a student apartment years ago and it was basically a hundred dollars for install fees. They must have already been laying it on the street, but still. Competition?
- lotsofpulp 2mo agoIf stuff is already being dug up for another reason, then the numbers can pencil out. But it’s pretty rare for somewhere that does not have fiber to gain access to fiber, at least on any reasonable timescale.
- piva00 2mo agoSweden pushed for FttH even though all outdated cabling was already buried, no idea why just a city like SF cannot do the same. Probably a main difference is that the Swedish infrastructure was deployed by municipalities with an open access model, so no need for 10 different ISPs to dig their own cabling.
- robin_reala 2mo agoI was considering a move to Skurup five or so years ago, checked to see if gigabit fibre was available and it turned out the whole town had a 10Gb symmetric stadsnät.
- silisili 2mo agoThe US gov was giving away a ton of money to do this in rural areas. A company came and trenched miles of roadside ditches with new fiber, and ran FTTH for free in a pretty sparsely populated area. As a result, many rural areas have way better internet than big cities.