ISP's In Uproar Over Verizon-MCI Merger

Thu Aug 25 12:19:31 UTC 2005

> From owner-nanog at merit.edu  Wed Aug 24 23:28:58 2005
> Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 21:27:15 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja at darkwing.uoregon.edu>
> To: Daniel Golding <dgolding at burtongroup.com>
> Cc: Joe Abley <jabley at isc.org>, Lewis Butler <lbutler at covisp.net>,
>         NANOG list <nanog at merit.edu>
> Subject: Re: ISP's In Uproar Over Verizon-MCI Merger
>
>
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Daniel Golding wrote:
>
> >
> > I suggest you take another look at these numbers. Those countries with
> > overall population densities lower than the US's all have something in
> > common - they are really cold. Iceland, Canada, Finland, Norway, Sweden.
> > Folks in those countries are densely packed into relatively small regions of
> > their overall land area (near oceans or in cities). Sure, some folks live
> > out in Nunavut, but a relatively small number. Contrast that with the US
> > where the population is far more spread out.
> >
> > This is an issue of both distribution and density, not just density.
>
>
> So you're saying the US is screwed because of unique geography? Or is that 
> something poltical will can overcome?

political will cannot overcome the situation where it is further from the
_property-line_ to the house than the reach of DSL or cable -- never mind
the distance from the telco C.O., or the cable head-end.

Delivering service in low-population density areas is _expensive_, no matter
how you do it, when measured on a 'per user' basis.  'Wireless' is the most
efficient way to serve low-density areas, but the cost-per-user is still 
orders of magnitude higher than wired service in a high-population-density
locale.

If you want to do 'meaningful' geographic comparasions,  one needs to break
down each geopolitical entity into sub-areas, by population density.  and
look at relative coverage within the areas of 'comparable' population density.