AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO
owen at delong.com
Wed Dec 4 20:56:22 UTC 2013
On Dec 4, 2013, at 12:35 , Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike at swm.pp.se> wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Dec 2013, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> significantly worse policies than wireline providers. Wireless bandwidth is rapidly approaching parity with wired bandwidth pricing at consumer levels.
> Have you seen the cost of an LTE base station including install and monthly fees? If you did, you wouldn't make that claim.
Nope... I look at the consumer side pricing and the fact that cellular providers by and large are NOT losing money. I assume that means that the rest of the math behind the scenes must work somehow.
> If you want to deliver not even close to speed parity to fiber, you need multiple base stations per city block. This is extremely cost prohivitive, especially since you need fiber to the base stations anyway.
I'd love fiber, but I can't even get fiber in my neighborhood (or most of the civilized portions of the US) because fiber deployments are concentrated where rural subsidies are available due to USF market manipulations.
> Btw, if I could convince everybody in my building to pay 400 USD install for fiber, I could get 100/100 Internet conenctivity for USD10 per month. There just isn't any way in the world this is doable with wireless.
Yeah, I'm sure there are all kinds of ways that wireline could be made cheaper, etc. However, I'm talking about comparing consumer pricing, not behind the scenes costs as the former is relatively easy to compare on even footing while the later is far to obfuscated by far too many parties to ever have a rational debate.
> Don't make the mistake of comparing the dysfunctional US market pricing levels with what is actually doable in a working market.
I said nothing about what was possible... I only comment on what is actually happening. If you know how to achieve a functioning market in the US, I'm all ears. In the mean time, dysfunction is all I have available to work with.
More information about the NANOG