On Tue, 01 Jun 2021 10:10:17 -0000, scott said:
> $10400 / $125 = 84 months or 7 years.
> On the high side: 14 years.
Plus ongoing monthly costs that drags out the break-even.
The big question is how to get a CFO to buy into stuff with a long break-even
schedule when short-term profits get emphasized. Telcos strung a lot of copper
when they were assured of multiple decades of returns - and even *then* getting
it out to rural areas required providing more incentive....
(going to be pretty us-centric, sorry 'not use folks', also this isn't about valdis's message directly)
There's a bunch of discussion which seems to sideline 'most of the population' and then
the conversation ratholes on talk about folk that are not grouped together closely (living in cities/towns).
I think this is a good example of: "Perfect is the enemy of the good" in that there are a whole
bunch, 82% or so[1], of folk live 'in cities' (or near enough) as of 2019.
If the 'new' standard is 100/100, that'd be perfectly servicable and deployable to
82% of the population.
Wouldn't it make sense to either:
1) not offer subsidies to city-centric deployments (or pro-rate those)
2) get return on the longer-haul 'not city' deployments via slightly higher costs elsewhere?
(or shift the subisidies to cover the rural deployments more completely?)
Yes 'telco' folk will have to play ball, but also they get to keep their 'we do broadband' marketting..
Holding back ~80% of the population because you can't sort the other 20% out (or a large portion of that 20%)
in a sane manner sure seems shortsighted. I get that trenching fiber down 'state-route-foobar' is hard, and costly,
but throwing up your hand and declaring that 'no one needs XXX mbps' is more than just a little obstructionist.