Yup; the Internet is screwed up.

Max Pierson nmaxpierson at gmail.com
Sat Jun 11 01:11:16 UTC 2011

> 2) Last mile is expensive to install and hard to justify for people.  This
is because of a long history of universal service and

Not only that, it makes it even worse when you hear firsthand accounts of
"yea, this customer's DSL is screwed because at&t was too cheap to install
proper guage wires like they did down the street in the same neighborhood!!"
from an actual at&t digital technician.

And yes, this was in the middle of a US city with almost 500k population.

So much for "rethink possible", I guess we'll just have to live with "reach
out and touch someone"......


On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Jared Mauch <jared at puck.nether.net> wrote:

> On Jun 10, 2011, at 10:01 AM, Kyle Creyts wrote:
> > I think the point is the ubiquity of access isn't what it should be.
> I think there were several good points made in the article.
> 1) Data caps and how they impact software updates (or downloads) -
> hughesnet was mentioned but ..
> Looking to the near future, Apple is selling a 4GB download for $30 in the
> next month or so.  That will have a large impact on networks that day IMHO.
>  If you have a 3G/4G/LTE/whatnot device it makes it impossible to pull down
> the image without hitting your 5GB or 10GB cap compared to a fixed access
> network.
> Even assuming you go to the local Panera/McDonalds/Starbucks/Library
> access, if you get 2MB/s (16Mb/s) you're talking about 20-25 minutes.  Those
> locales don't usually have that fast of a network though.
> 2) Last mile is expensive to install and hard to justify for people.  This
> is because of a long history of universal service and
> subsidization/regulation.
> In Michigan you could get a phone line installed for $42 (not sure, haven't
> installed POTS in a long time, may have gone up) regardless of the cost to
> the carrier.  This isn't the case when you want to extend other utilities
> (eg Gas, electric, water...).  People are willing to pay 10k+ to install
> these services as part of their construction expense.  Their other utility
> cost is masked in part due to the past 100+ years of telecom history.  The
> cost of lighting a 20km strand of fiber at 1Gb/s is somewhere in the $600,
> including ONT, etc.  Many people here on nanog would happily pay that
> amount.  Now, the 12-100k per mile to build the fiber is the hard part to
> eat.
> 3) Certainly he did a poor job of site selection.  Perhaps he was misled or
> even lied to.  I've faced similar challenges when working with both hardware
> vendors and carriers out there.  The sales peoples eyes get big once you
> start talking about "doing" something, but the engineers at the table
> generally start asking serious questions.  (I certainly will not move
> anywhere that doesn't have a HFC or PON/FTTH network.  Sorry
> AT&T/Centurylink/others but the plusses don't justify the minuses).
> -
> It's certainly possible that we will see improved last-mile access.  The
> USDA/RUS and DOC/NTIA efforts are to be applauded.  If you look at the
> current AT&T + T-Mobile merger people are talking about it will bring
> broadband to 97% of the country, and help AT&T (mobility division) with
> last-mile/local tower regulatory hurdles.  They are not talking about how it
> will remove the need for data caps that are 1/30th the size of their 150GB
> cap on their mobile side elements.
> I suspect there's a lot that could be improved by each market player here,
> but as happened with Verizon in the Northeast, I expect the less-dense
> markets will need to have better local service from regional players vs the
> "big guys".  Overall this will be good, but the costs will also have to be
> paid for more with the local subscriber.
> - Jared

More information about the NANOG mailing list