Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

vTel Deploying Gigabit Internet In Vermont At $35/Month

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the when-i-think-fast-internet,-i-think-rural-vermont dept.

Networking 146

symbolset writes "Up to 17,500 rural Vermont subscribers of vTel, a legacy copper telephone company, stand to get gigabit fiber to the home. Funded by a $95 million U.S. grant and $55 million in coinvestment from a utility for smart meters, the 1,200 mile fiber network will cost $8,500 per home — if every subscriber takes the gigabit Internet. Currently the company is doing its best to convince people this is a product they need, but have seen only 600 takers so far. The federal grant is part of $7.2 billion in broadband stimulus funds that seem to have accomplished very little."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

One by one the dominos fall... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43566797)

Looks like Google's master plan is springing into action

Re:One by one the dominos fall... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43566907)

If by "action" you mean funding this with borrowed money from the public that it can't afford well then yes.

Re:One by one the dominos fall... (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year and a half ago | (#43567525)

Public money is used for all sorts of infrastructure projects. You build roads because they are needed, not because you want to make the money back. Network infrastructure is getting just as important as any other infrastructure. This is unfortunately as recognized as it should be. In a perfect world the government would build an open fiber optic network with the goal of covering 100 % of the population. Building this as part of private infrastructure is of course not optimal, but it's good that at least someone recognizes the need.

Re:One by one the dominos fall... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43568131)

you brain oozes troll juice!

Re:One by one the dominos fall... (0)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year and a half ago | (#43568217)

Network infrastructure is getting just as important as any other infrastructure.

The problem is that, as the market shows, most people neither need nor want gigabit or even 100meg. even 50/20 is more than most people will ever use.

Would I be able to make use of it? Absolutely. But that doesnt mean it makes any kind of sense for the government to push for gigabit everywhere, and just hope that somehow uses for it will magically appear. Part of living in the real world is prioritizing how you spend your limited resources, and generally its better to address needs that you have NOW rather than addressing potential future needs.

Re:One by one the dominos fall... (3, Insightful)

Bonewalker (631203) | about a year and a half ago | (#43568265)

"The problem is that, as the market shows, most people neither need nor want gigabit or even 100meg. even 50/20 is more than most people will ever use."

And 64kb of ram is all any computer will ever need, too.

I'm not saying we necessarily need more now, or that we can afford it now, but let's not put arbitrary limits on future capacity based on today's experiences or make decisions that impede progreess. It doesn't hold up.

Re:One by one the dominos fall... (2, Insightful)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year and a half ago | (#43568457)

And 64kb of ram is all any computer will ever need, too.

I'm not saying we necessarily need more now, or that we can afford it now, but let's not put arbitrary limits on future capacity based on today's experiences or make decisions that impede progreess. It doesn't hold up.

The best way to figure that hugely complex problem out is with market forces, not arbitrary "well, we're gonna burn $150million and hope that the demand appears".

Past trends do not indicate that people will need or want gigabit internet for many, many, many years now.

Try that sort of thinking out with other infrastructure; why not invest in 4 lane roads to each house, and 500 amps of current to each house, and double-capacity storm drainage. I mean, the need isnt there NOW, but in the future, who knows, right?

Re:One by one the dominos fall... (2)

Lawrence_Bird (67278) | about a year and a half ago | (#43568915)

The only problem with that analogy is that people and goods travel for free on those roads or pay a fee/toll to the government based on usage. This fiber is not a public thoroughfare operated by a federal or state government.

Living in VT but not in that area, I am served by a relatively small (and also subsidized) independent telco. I've just recently been upgraded to about 6.5/1 Mbps DSL. I've heard they weill be expanding a fiber roll out, though not necessarily to the curb but close enough to allow higher speeds. However, I am still required to buy a landline (and pay all the fees and tithes associated with that) to get DSL pushing my monthly bill to about $65/month. The DSL portion is $40 + some fees. Not the cheapest, though at least from a download perspective it is fast enough for most things. Network reliability has been an issue but is improving as they replace aging equipment. Given its the boonies, the DSL price isn't crushingly bad, though $30-35 would be more reasonable. Its the landline that kills the deal.

Re:One by one the dominos fall... (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about a year and a half ago | (#43567537)

Some many year many country research showed a 0.7% increase in GDP for every doubling in Internet speed. The cost of nation wide 1Gb fiber would be paid off in 1-2 years if we got even one 0.7% increase.

Re:One by one the dominos fall... (0)

Mitsoid (837831) | about a year and a half ago | (#43567695)

If you want to complain about borrowed money being misused.. and political mumbo-jumbo..

The FAA needed to cut 50 MILLION dollars.. if you ask a republican newcaster.. they would stress the word MILLION and then throw Obamacare into the conversation somehow.. saying how it is his fault..

A Democrate, on the other hand, would say that the sequester should never have happened, and the only reason it did happen is because republicans wanted to make a statement.. They would throw in an accusation that the tea party is trying to push barrels full of expired government-dependents stuffed into barrels off the dock and into the port's waters.

If you're an independent watching all this.. you see a ____ ton of complaining and bickering... Children playing around with amounts to monopoly money to them... and on one hand both sides have a public opinion.. and on the other, both sides are slipping $5 million to their brother's or sister's company to build a childrens playground in Washington state, as part of a transportation bill in florida.

In the end, no one ever wants to look at the numbers and see how both sides are throwing feces at each other because the parties are polarized, and every media organization is owned by someone who is a member of one party or the other.

My point is, depending on which side of the argument you look at, both of them are fallocies designed to over-hype an issue into some massive full-blown socialists-are-in-the-white-house or republicans-are-destrying-our-country propaganda.. and no one looks at the actual numbers:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionGPO.action?collectionCode=BUDGET [gpo.gov]

Recent:
FAA Expenses (Outlays) 2013: $16,747,000,000
FAA Expenses (Outlays) 2012: $16,894,000,000
FAA Expenses (Outlays) 2011: $15,842,000,000

A jump back in history:
FAA Expenses (Outlays) 2003: $12,721,000,000

Attempted cost savings w/ Furlough: 50,000,000

God that's too many zero's... it just makes things seem so confusing dont they...
16,747 ... 000,000
-.....50 ... 000,000
16,697 .. 000,000

or still 4,000 ... 000,000 more then it's budget a decade ago...

Out of all that budget growth and bloat.. they ONLY place they could substantially cut "In the name of safety" is $50 for air traffic controllers? They had $17 billion to play with

Re:One by one the dominos fall... (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year and a half ago | (#43568247)

You are right that both sides in Congress are basically engaging in melodrama for the sake of the cameras.

I think Trent Lott remarked a few years ago that media everywhere was one of the best and worst things to happen to modern democracy. Sums it up pretty nicely.

Your Obamabucks at work! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43566809)

I hope you are happy to be funding high speed internet for some maple syrup-drinking loggers while our major cities are broadband wastelands. This is a great illustration of why we should not let government become involved in these types of things.

Re:Your Obamabucks at work! (1)

TheRealDevTrash (2849653) | about a year and a half ago | (#43568909)

then move!

BURN these quotes into your MIND (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43566825)

Memorable quotes for
Looker (1981)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082677/quotes [imdb.com]

"John Reston: Television can control public opinion more effectively than armies of secret police, because television is entirely voluntary. The American government forces our children to attend school, but nobody forces them to watch T.V. Americans of all ages *submit* to television. Television is the American ideal. Persuasion without coercion. Nobody makes us watch. Who could have predicted that a *free* people would voluntarily spend one fifth of their lives sitting in front of a *box* with pictures? Fifteen years sitting in prison is punishment. But 15 years sitting in front of a television set is entertainment. And the average American now spends more than one and a half years of his life just watching television commercials. Fifty minutes, every day of his life, watching commercials. Now, that's power."

##

"The United States has it's own propaganda, but it's very effective because people don't realize that it's propaganda. And it's subtle, but it's actually a much stronger propaganda machine than the Nazis had but it's funded in a different way. With the Nazis it was funded by the government, but in the United States, it's funded by corporations and corporations they only want things to happen that will make people want to buy stuff. So whatever that is, then that is considered okay and good, but that doesn't necessarily mean it really serves people's thinking - it can stupify and make not very good things happen."
- Crispin Glover: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000417/bio [imdb.com]

##

"It's only logical to assume that conspiracies are everywhere, because that's what people do. They conspire. If you can't get the message, get the man." - Mel Gibson (from an interview)

##

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." - William Casey, CIA Director

##

"The real reason for the official secrecy, in most instances, is not to keep the opposition (the CIA's euphemistic term for the enemy) from knowing what is going on; the enemy usually does know. The basic reason for governmental secrecy is to keep you, the American public, from knowing - for you, too, are considered the opposition, or enemy - so that you cannot interfere. When the public does not know what the government or the CIA is doing, it cannot voice its approval or disapproval of their actions. In fact, they can even lie to your about what they are doing or have done, and you will not know it. As for the second advantage, despite frequent suggestion that the CIA is a rogue elephant, the truth is that the agency functions at the direction of and in response to the office of the president. All of its major clandestine operations are carried out with the direct approval of or on direct orders from the White House. The CIA is a secret tool of the president - every president. And every president since Truman has lied to the American people in order to protect the agency. When lies have failed, it has been the duty of the CIA to take the blame for the president, thus protecting him. This is known in the business as "plausible denial." The CIA, functioning as a secret instrument of the U.S. government and the presidency, has long misused and abused history and continues to do so."
- Victor Marchetti, Propaganda and Disinformation: How the CIA Manufactures History

##

George Carlin:

"The real owners are the big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians, they're an irrelevancy. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They've long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the statehouses, the city halls. They've got the judges in their back pockets. And they own all the big media companies, so that they control just about all of the news and information you hear. They've got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want; they want more for themselves and less for everybody else.

But I'll tell you what they don't want. They don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don't want well-informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking. They're not interested in that. That doesn't help them. That's against their interests. They don't want people who are smart enough to sit around the kitchen table and figure out how badly they're getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fucking years ago.

You know what they want? Obedient workers people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork but just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, reduced benefits, the end of overtime and the vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it. And, now, they're coming for your Social Security. They want your fucking retirement money. They want it back, so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street. And you know something? They'll get it. They'll get it all, sooner or later, because they own this fucking place. It's a big club, and you ain't in it. You and I are not in the big club.

This country is finished."

##

[1967] Jim Garrison Interview "In a very real and terrifying sense, our Government is the CIA and the Pentagon, with Congress reduced to a debating society. Of course, you can't spot this trend to fascism by casually looking around. You can't look for such familiar signs as the swastika, because they won't be there. We won't build Dachaus and Auschwitzes; the clever manipulation of the mass media is creating a concentration camp of the mind that promises to be far more effective in keeping the populace in line. We're not going to wake up one morning and suddenly find ourselves in gray uniforms goose-stepping off to work. But this isn't the test. The test is: What happens to the individual who dissents? In Nazi Germany, he was physically destroyed; here, the process is more subtle, but the end results can be the same. I've learned enough about the machinations of the CIA in the past year to know that this is no longer the dreamworld America I once believed in. The imperatives of the population explosion, which almost inevitably will lessen our belief in the sanctity of the individual human life, combined with the awesome power of the CIA and the defense establishment, seem destined to seal the fate of the America I knew as a child and bring us into a new Orwellian world where the citizen exists for the state and where raw power justifies any and every immoral act. I've always had a kind of knee-jerk trust in my Government's basic integrity, whatever political blunders it may make. But I've come to realize that in Washington, deceiving and manipulating the public are viewed by some as the natural prerogatives of office. Huey Long once said, "Fascism will come to America in the name of anti-fascism." I'm afraid, based on my own experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security."

##

"Everything we see has some hidden message. A lot of awful messages are coming in under the radar - subliminal consumer messages, all kinds of politically incorrect messages..." - Harold Ramis

Re: BURN these quotes into your MIND (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43567435)

I miss Carlin so much.

Great! (1)

Cornwallis (1188489) | about a year and a half ago | (#43566829)

At least we'll be able to watch Nero fiddle faster.

There is money for this which is good since our roads are crumbling and we won't be able to drive to work.

Re:Great! (4, Insightful)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | about a year and a half ago | (#43568489)

There is money for this which is good since our roads are crumbling and we won't be able to drive to work.

Maybe in your state. In my state, the road I drive on every day got a new layer of asphalt last summer. The extension and expansion project for the highway I drive on every day was finished late last year, with brand new concrete. The bridge I use to cross a river every day is less than 5 years old. The bridge the other 1/3rd of the metro area uses to cross the same river every day is being replaced as I write this. Replaced, not repaired. One entire span was torn down last year and the brand new replacement is making rapid progress this year, despite the weather. When it's done, they'll tear down and replace the other span.

In the past 3 1/2 years, 802 bridges in this state were repaired or replaced. The schedule called for 5 years.

Crumbling bridges and highways are problems in mismanaged states. In states with competent road planners and honest contractors, the jobs get planned, started, and finished, on budget, under the projected schedule, and to high quality. The new bridges even have substantial earthquake resistance built in, because there's a fault near enough to be a problem. It hasn't tripped in over 100 years, but every time it does, it's massive.

Where am I? In the heartland of America, in a state with one Republican Senator and one Democratic Senator and a Democratic governor. Red or blue, the representatives in this state know what government is FOR. The ancient Romans and ancient Chinese knew this: if there is one and only one thing government is for, it's road construction. Why other people don't get what's been known for literally thousands of years, I'm sure I don't know. Missouri knows though.

And Missouri too is using federal grant money and state matching to build rural fiber. I bet ours gets done and works.

This is why (1, Interesting)

e065c8515d206cb0e190 (1785896) | about a year and a half ago | (#43566839)

Governement should not subsidise anything. Ensuring proper regulation and competition is enough.

Am I the only one appalled by such counterproductive use of tax dollars?
Don't get me wrong, I like fibre and hate the usual suspects (TWC, Comcast, ...). But seriously? $8,500 per home and that's if the home actually subscribes to the service?

Re:This is why (1)

goombah99 (560566) | about a year and a half ago | (#43566857)

Yes but if only 1000 people subscribe then that's 150,000$ per home. It would raise the price of my home by $150,000

Re:This is why (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year and a half ago | (#43566951)

No, it just means that few people will benefit. The price of the home won't be materially affected. The cost of the service will depend mostly on demand. Homeowners aren't likely to pay $150,000 for the service.

Re:This is why (2)

goombah99 (560566) | about a year and a half ago | (#43567009)

The cost of the service will depend mostly on demand. Homeowners aren't likely to pay $150,000 for the service.

But a business would.

It's like bus service or public transportation (2)

girlinatrainingbra (2738457) | about a year and a half ago | (#43567071)

The standard argument against public transportation always forgets that the capability scales up easily and provides a lower cost ultimately. Most of the first objections against public transportation take the full cost of the service and instead of amortizing it over multiple years and a larger populace served says "why only 4000 people will ride the bus! Instead of spending 80 million on 4 thousand people, we could just give each of them 20 thousand to buy their own car and we'd be better off!! We don't need bus service!". But giving those people cars won't solve anything when another 30 thousand people want to use the bus later. But building the bus system with available excess capacity will help out in the longer term
.
It's the same way with building out and deploying this high speed network access. The cost is amortized over multiple years. Why is it that when the gov't pays for it directly, people get riled up but when the government sneaks it out as a subsidy or a give-away of public right of way access to monopolies provided by private corporations, no one realizes the actual cost of what is being given away?

Re:It's like bus service or public transportation (2)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year and a half ago | (#43567205)

The standard argument against public transportation always forgets that the capability scales up easily and provides a lower cost ultimately. Most of the first objections against public transportation take the full cost of the service and instead of amortizing it over multiple years and a larger populace served says "why only 4000 people will ride the bus! Instead of spending 80 million on 4 thousand people, we could just give each of them 20 thousand to buy their own car and we'd be better off!! We don't need bus service!". But giving those people cars won't solve anything when another 30 thousand people want to use the bus later. But building the bus system with available excess capacity will help out in the longer term . It's the same way with building out and deploying this high speed network access. The cost is amortized over multiple years. Why is it that when the gov't pays for it directly, people get riled up but when the government sneaks it out as a subsidy or a give-away of public right of way access to monopolies provided by private corporations, no one realizes the actual cost of what is being given away?

TFA states a cost to users of $35 / month, or $420/year/subscriber. If there are 11,000 subscribers, which would mean every household in the served area subscribing, that's $4.62M per year in revenue. It will take 20 years to amortize the cost from ratepayers.

when you consider the possibility of future expansion, consider this is rural Vermont we're talking about. Population expansion is slow in rural Vermont.

Next question: who gets that money? This isn't a direct subsidy to Vermont homeowners. It's a subsidy to the company that will provide the service for a fee.

Re:It's like bus service or public transportation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43567309)

when you consider the possibility of future expansion, consider this is rural Vermont we're talking about. Population expansion is slow in rural Vermont.

Population expansion may be slow, but I'm sure as heck ready to move to the next county over if I can get that kind of speeds.

Source: I'm a Vermonter.

As an example for this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43567515)

There's a lot of small independent tech firms in the Sierra Nevada's in California. (This is where Sierra software started out in fact). For anyone who is unaware, the entire mountain regions out here are pretty heavily rural, with most schools centralized into the larger towns (few thousand to maybe 10k people for the larger ones.)

Assuming Vermont has a similiar level of industry spread across it's rural areas, this broadband rollout could do a lot to spur relocation into the region for rural lifestyle techies who might otherwise be limited to expensive and subpar options in internet accessibility.

Combined with some of the more liberal laws to have been passed in Vermont in the past few years, it's looking more and more like one of the few bastion's of progressiveness left on the east coast.

Re:It's like bus service or public transportation (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year and a half ago | (#43568285)

It's a subsidy to the company that will provide the service for a fee.

.... who otherwise wouldnt provide the service.

The problem isnt that the subsidies are going to a company, its that the whole idea is a bad one from start to finish. By the time the costs are recouped, the technology will have changed / become cheaper, and its not a sure thing that even in 20 years gigabit-to-the-house will be terribly useful for most people.

If the LOCAL government wanted to do this as a way of pulling in business, sure, maybe there'd be some merit to the idea, but the federal government really needs to step back and remember what its job is.

Are you f%#%$$% kidding me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43567651)

It is always the collectivist argument like yours that seem to win the day saying we should build infrastructure with all of this EXCESS CAPACITY... you know we are 16 TRILLION in DEBT... right... there IS NOT EXCESS CAPACITY....

the government is BORROWING MONEY to pay for stupid shit like this... so stupid people like you can say shit like FUTURE PROOF... ( as any asshole who has ever had a cut fiber cable to their building knows is not true )

government is FORCE... don't defend it... they do everything bad... big business is holding its leash... start questioning and stop going around with a hook in your mouth

Re:This is why (1)

Bartles (1198017) | about a year and a half ago | (#43567249)

No, it would raise the cost of your home by $150,000.

Re:This is why (3, Interesting)

currently_awake (1248758) | about a year and a half ago | (#43567147)

By your logic government should not pay for public roads. It should all be privately owned toll roads. And get rid of the public fire department, you can pay for that if you need it (or they can buy your house when it catches fire- it worked in ancient Rome). The purpose of government is to act as the collective will of the people, and having public roads/sewer/water/police/internet is the best way to do it.

Re:This is why (0)

DFurno2003 (739807) | about a year and a half ago | (#43567627)

Wow, way to stretch that guys comment. having public roads, sewer, water, and emergency services are a necessity. internet on the other hand is in no way a necessity, especially at such a high cost. using public money for this when we are still in a deficit is completely irrational.

Re:This is why (1)

haruchai (17472) | about a year and a half ago | (#43568227)

Why are those necessities? Our forebears got along for a very long time without having any of those things provided at their doorsteps by the government.

Re:This is why (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43568437)

They were also much worse off than we are today.

funnny thing is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43568335)

Funny thing is, we've got private EMS, for-profit hospitals and a volunteer fire department here. Seems to work well.

Re:This is why (2)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year and a half ago | (#43568309)

By your logic government should not pay for public roads

It should all be privately owned toll roads.

As opposed to the no-competition toll roads that my taxpayer dollars just paid for around I-495? After 5 years of construction and untold millions of tax dollars, I now have the privilege of paying $5 to a state-granted monopoly to use the new road that I paid for. Thats TOTALLY better than what a private solution might have been, right?

Re:This is why (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about a year and a half ago | (#43567559)

I think we should get rid of all government funded services, like police, education, road, power, water, you know, society.

Re: This is why (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43567599)

"Some people just want to watch the world burn."

Re: This is why (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43568253)

Not the whole world - just where other people live...

Re:This is why (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year and a half ago | (#43568315)

Theres a massive difference between federal and local government investing in things.

Theres also a massive difference between basic utilities-- which these rural areas already have-- and gigabit internet, which basically noone residential needs nor can use right now.

Re:This is why (1)

TheRealDevTrash (2849653) | about a year and a half ago | (#43568967)

So how is it that you flaot every where?

Keep 'em coming! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43566841)

Thank you Google for forcing telecoms to start moving their asses and provide better internet at proper prices.
Can't wait those 20 years it will take before we get this in Canada too!

Why? (1, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | about a year and a half ago | (#43566843)

Why are we funding this kind of service in rural areas when the much cheaper to wire urban areas still don't have this sort of service? What's more, urban areas always seem to get the shaft on things like this where we're paying to subsidize other people's wasteful lifestyles, even as our infrastructure is crumbling.

Seriously, most of the tax revenue comes from the developed portions of the country, but most of the spending is done in less developed areas of the country.

Re:Why? (0)

goombah99 (560566) | about a year and a half ago | (#43566865)

Hi do you eat food, drink water, heat your home, or breath air? Then you need to realize that all those people laboring in the "undeveloped" open spaces are have to exist for any "developed" area to every come into existence. You are subsidizing yourself when you make it nice for people to live in those areas.

Re:Why? (1)

hedwards (940851) | about a year and a half ago | (#43566899)

Your point being? These people aren't giving away the food and whatnot for free, I pay for that.

Again, I ask, why am I forced to subsidize them because they don't know how to pay for the services that they use.

Re:Why? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43566915)

Your point being? These people aren't giving away the food and whatnot for free, I pay for that.

Again, I ask, why am I forced to subsidize them because they don't know how to pay for the services that they use.

C'mon, you're this close to a light-bulb moment.

Can't do it? Here's a hint, if you weren't subsidizing them on one end, that food would cost you more on the other.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43567035)

If we need to subsidize food... then subsidize food. No need to waste money on infrastructure that cannot be efficiently provided.

Re:Why? (2)

hedwards (940851) | about a year and a half ago | (#43567087)

Not really, by subsidizing these things and having them done by Federal contract the incentive to get the most efficient work done is greatly reduced. If these people were paying out of their pockets, rather than mine, I'm curious if they'd still be expecting a level of service that's substantially higher than what's available in the city for half the price of what is presently available in cities.

To put it another way, here in Seattle I'm spending about $60 a month on a 5mbps internet connection. Which is nearly double the cost for 1/200th of the speed. The bridges are crumbling and the streets are in poor repair, but thank god that the rural folks get to siphon off my taxpayer dollars so that we don't waste any of it on fixing those bridges before they crumble in an earthquake. Or God forbid we spend it on the infrastructure that they use when they have goods shipped into or out of the US.

Re:Why? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43567135)

Actually, you have it backwards. The incentive to get the most efficient work done is greatly increased, while the incentive to get the most profit out of is is reduced. Turns out that due to economies of scale and demands on government virtue, it works a lot better than you imagine to have a large collective entity serving people's needs.

If they were paying out of their pockets, they'd be hamstrung by greedy corporate bastards with a position of power over them, and that would cost them more, which would mean you'd be charged even more. Yeah, I know you want to believe in your mythical free market which solves all problems in some miraculous way, but the real world doesn't work like that. You want to know who's really set on screwing you? It's the people selling you that snake oil story.

PS, you're complaining about bridges and roads, when those are a perfect example of what happens when a corrupt private interest gets involved. More waste and inefficiency, instead of doing the job properly. But no, we can't even fire a company that can't fulfill its bid obligations, but have to give them MORE money to fix what they broke.

YAY!

 

Re:Why? (1)

hedwards (940851) | about a year and a half ago | (#43567185)

Economy of scale doesn't mean that you have a big project, it means using the size of the project to bargain down prices, which is something that the government doesn't much do. Take a look at the prescription drug law from some years back which specifically banned the haggling of prices for the drugs. Or the various no bid contracts that the GOP was fond of during the Bush administration.

And no, if they were paying out of their own pockets that wouldn't happen. Around here the city owns the utilities. The water is expensive on a per gallon basis, but the water is some of the cleanest in the country and the typical water bill is substantially lower than average. The electric company provides great service at affordable prices. And with a municipally owned ISP we'd have that kind of service for the internet as well.

No, the reason for the bridges and roads isn't corruption, it's a lack of tax revenue because we're too busy subsidizing roads and infrastructure for rural voters that are too greedy and self-entitled to let us keep some of our tax revenue to maintain our section of the infrastructure.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43567287)

That's something YOUR government doesn't do, because YOU let YOUR government be SOLD to the Free Market. See why that provision exists, it's to protect the precious private companies who need their all-important profits. While in other countries, they're happily telling Big Pharma to go screw themselves.

Get a better one, and watch things change. But no, you'd rather complain that the rural voters are the problem and are siphoning off your tax money. And then the rural voters are being sold another story, and you're so lost in your antagonism that you get distracted from the real dangers.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43568421)

Rural voters are the voters that are voting for the free market morons. My politicians are pushing for more sensible distributions of tax dollars and resources. As well as raising taxes to cover the need for infrastructure expenditure.

And considering all the infrastructure that they use and we have to pay for, I think it's perfectly legitimate to bitch about them living on the government dole and bitching about welfare recipients.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43567547)

You are subsidizing yourself when you make it nice for people to live in those areas.

Especially when you move out to an exurban housing plan that used to be a farm.

I read a lot about how horrible ethanol is because it takes farming land away from food production. Converting a farm to a housing plan takes farming land out of food production permanently. Why so few complaints about that? This kind of subsidy encourages the creation of more exurbs -- maybe we should be spending more time on subsidizing cities where people can walk to work rather than driving a hundred miles a day.

It's much better to pay a little more for food that supports farmers directly than to pay indirectly for something that supports other uses as much as farmers.

Re:Why? (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year and a half ago | (#43568345)

I think the government should subsidize 72" TVs for all of the folks in rural vermont.

Reasoning:
  * Its about $5000 / household cheaper than this gigabit idea
  * Its useful now (unlike the gigabit internet, which you cannot effectively use right now)
  * The folks in rural vermont would get a great deal more enjoyment out of a 72" TV than getting youtube / netflix / remote work done at exactly the same speed / quality as a basic cable connection
  * Why the hell not, government is supposed to make these purchases right?

Re:Why? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43566903)

Fine... We'll keep the food. Go fuck yourself.

Good luck with that (1)

hedwards (940851) | about a year and a half ago | (#43567121)

BTW, good luck producing that food without the goods that come through our ports and the tools and supplies that are produced in our factories.

Re:Why? (2)

Kalvos (137750) | about a year and a half ago | (#43567229)

Why? Because in Vermont we know how to demo these things. I've had broadband since 1999 because a small local company with 300 customers showed how entrepreneurship works and installed it. With its tough weather and geography, Vermont has been a test bed for a lot of advanced projects. We'll discover how it's done most effectively, then you can apply it to the urban infrastructure.

optical signal integrity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43567263)

Optical signals sent over decent fiber optic cable can go for many miles without degrading, unlike signals over copper wire. DSL speed is strongly effected by cable length. Therefore, I prefer rural areas be wired up with long distance fiber optic cables before city dwellers get their DSL cables changed. I also say that 768 kbps is good enough, but if the incremental cost of going up to 1 gbps is several percent more in price, why not go all the way?

Re: Why? (1)

alen (225700) | about a year and a half ago | (#43567591)

To raise our average bandwidth numbers

Re:Why? (1)

westlake (615356) | about a year and a half ago | (#43567741)

Why are we funding this kind of service in rural areas when the much cheaper to wire urban areas still don't have this sort of service?

"Dig We Must."

The rural Telco doesn't have to snake its way inch by inch through 150-200 years of existing urban infrastructure below ground and above --- which is what you'll find in the Northeast.

Seriously, most of the tax revenue comes from the developed portions of the country, but most of the spending is done in less developed areas of the country.

Nonsense.

Unless you chose to count the cost of importing water, food and power into cities like New York and Los Angeles.

Wow, an article for 2010? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43566853)

Complaining about something from 2010, you'd think somebody would get an up to date information source.

$8500 a home? (2, Insightful)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year and a half ago | (#43566867)

Sounds like a giant waste of money to me. What else could you supply for $8500/home?

  • street repairs?
  • free water service?
  • a used car for each household?
  • a new roof for everybody?
  • Government-funded maid service?

Re:$8500 a home? (2)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about a year and a half ago | (#43567063)

What else could you supply for $8500/home?

The Vermont politicians who arranged this just bought themselves 600 re-election votes . . .

. . . and it didn't even cost them a single cent!

Re:$8500 a home? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43568059)

If you look closely at the grant details, much of the funds also are for a nearly state-wide 4G/LTE network... So $8500/home would be something closer to $250/home considering the population of Vermont?

Re:$8500 a home? (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year and a half ago | (#43568349)

Government funded TV, which people would actually appreciate / realize they had, as opposed to gbit internet.

Stimulus accomplishing little? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43566869)

Tell that to my parents, brother and the two rural Michigan communities they live in. They've seen increased competition in their markets where no one was willing to bring broadband previously.

They used to have cable lines that literally ran right past their house - albeit about 100-200 meters away from the premises. They tried to pay the cable company to hook them up and were repeatedly turned down, even with an offer of $1500 for installation. (Heh, they were desperate for anything better than 56k dialup, I guess.)

Anyhow, in the past year and a half they've had four different broadband ISPs come into the area, all of which are funded by this pool of broadband stimulus. They have more options in their rural area than I have in suburban upstate NY. They also have competitive or better connectivity. It'll be interesting to see what happens once the funding dries up.

i guess i am not the only one (2)

mapkinase (958129) | about a year and a half ago | (#43566887)

...dividing 8,500 by 35.

More than 10 years

Re:i guess i am not the only one (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43566963)

Hey, when the government is paying, ROI is irrelevant! This looks great on paper - your rough cost to run 1200 mi (2000 km) of fiber is anywhere from $50m to $100m, which leaves plenty for everything else. With the biggest expense out of the way, vTel is set to simply sustain itself from subscribers.

Re:i guess i am not the only one (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43567045)

What else could you stream or offer to the home via that fiber? Phone service? HD Television?

In my country every seperate ISP offers it own version of a TV/Phone service, not sure if it's the same in America. But if you could, that's a easier way to recoup an investment, but I'm sure it's not as easy as I'd like to think.

Re:i guess i am not the only one (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43567451)

...dividing 8,500 by 35.

More than 10 years

That's one way of putting it. Although I'd normally just say about twenty years and be done with it.

8500 / 35 = 242 5/7 months = 20 years plus 2 5/7 months

Maybe there's a reason why Google charges $70 per month for their service. It's also worth noting that there will be a monthly cost to providing the service. There are maintenance costs, customer service, and backbone fees to pay. I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be about $35 per month.

How useful is gigabit internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43566911)

When it's going to be throttled and/or capped eventually?

Oh God, I think I just became a Republican. (3, Insightful)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year and a half ago | (#43566913)

Seriously, maybe the spending IS the problem. Let's just take this hundred million we have to borrow and spend it on a bunch of people who will never appreciate the value of what they are getting because they don't fucking need it and couldn't imagine paying for it if they had the money burning a hole in their pockets.

For FSM's sake (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43567271)

I bet you'd have opposed rural electrification in the thirties, too.

You make two arguments: The government shouldn't be borrowing, and Vermonters (and rural people in general) don't 'deserve' good internet.

Economically speaking, government spending is precisely what is needed right now. I could use phrases like 'zero lower bound' and 'effective negative interest rate, when adjusted for inflation' but instead I'll just say that when there economy is stuck because people still don't have any money to spend, and the government can borrow money for free the best thing the government can do is to spend money on infrastructure construction projects that will pay people who will turn around and spend that money instead of socking it away into wall street savings.

As to your second point, that the kind of "people" who live in places like Vermont will "never appreciate the value of what they are getting"... Well I can't speak for the rest of the state, but I'd love to be able to game with a ping of less than 1000. I'd love to be able to post on forums without having to wait for my latest download to finish. I'd love to be able to do anything without my housemates' netflix stream dying a painful death. I'd love to try out a dozen new distros and DEs. And I'd love to say FUCK YOU and your oh-so-entitled attitude.

Source: I'm a Vermonter.

Re:For FSM's sake (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year and a half ago | (#43568387)

The benefit of gigabit internet approaches zero for 99.999% of residential customers, and most non-tech businesses as well.

Additionally, gigabit internet is really only useful for massive file transfers and streaming very-hi-def movies, which arent really in the same class as "education in the thirties".

If you have satellite or WiFi internet-- which can be deployed without spending ludicrous amounts of money-- you already have access to the most important parts of the internet with no degradation. If you have a basic DSL or cable line, you can already get Skype and the most important communication bits as well.

Even more importantly, this is NOT a federal issue, it is a local issue, and if it is important to the people of vermont, then they should pay for it. The idea of projects like this is to make the area more attractive than other states and pull in investment. When the local government does that, it represents competition between states at its best, and forces other states to up their game as well. When the federal government does it, at best it pulls business from another state who will then ask for money from the fed with no regard to effectiveness or efficiency, and represents the worst of government waste.

When its not vermont's money, who cares what the ROI is? Who cares how effective the plan is, or whether there's truly a need?

Re:Oh God, I think I just became a Republican. (1)

Urza9814 (883915) | about a year and a half ago | (#43568005)

People used to think electricity was useless too.

Re:Oh God, I think I just became a Republican. (2)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year and a half ago | (#43568399)

Good point. I think the Fed should launch an initiative to ensure that each household in rural vermont has access to 500amps of electricity. You know, to spur demand and growth. Im sure they will find a use for it.

Do you see how absurd this argument is?

Re:Oh God, I think I just became a Republican. (1)

Urza9814 (883915) | about a year and a half ago | (#43568707)

They're trying to invest in basic infrastructure. We don't have any obvious use for this stuff yet...but how could we, when we it doesn't really exist yet? I mean I'm not saying it's the best use of money in the world, but you've gotta be pretty dense to not understand why they're doing it. If nobody ever spent money on seemingly useless things, we wouldn't have electricity or tv or radio or ANY remotely modern technology, even back further than those.

I'm reminded of a story of Faraday...it is said he gave a very early demonstration of electricity in London -- essentially two coils of wire, one around a magnet and one around a compass, so when the magnet moved the compass needle did too. After the demo, one of the audience members approached and said "Well that's all very interesting, but what USE is it?" to which Faraday simply replied, "Of what use is a newborn baby?"

Also I think it's worth noticing that so far investments in communications technology have never really been wasted. Telegraphs to telephones to dial-up to broadband, every time we expand it we find something to fill that space. Humans LOVE communications tech. This is fairly new tech, and while I can't think of any good use for the average person to have that much bandwidth, I'm sure someone will figure something out. Why not crank it all the way up and just see what happens? Plenty of far worse things that the government blows money on -- like bombing eight year old Pakistani kids at $60k+ each.

Oh, and I know this isn't the point, but if you offered me 500amps of electricity for my home at $35/month, I'd take it in a heartbeat. Not sure what I'd do with it, but I'm damn sure I'd have a helluva lot of fun figuring that out! Wonder how much juice you'd need to keep a gattling railgun operating... :)

I Have VTel Fiber And Am Loving It! (4, Informative)

charles05663 (675485) | about a year and a half ago | (#43566961)

I had VTel install fiber to my home in November, 2012 and was one the first in the area. There has been some pains in the deployment and it took 2 long years to get it. I finally got it when I saw the installers working on a neighbor's house (her sister works for VTel and is in charge of scheduling the deployment). Talked to the installers and they were at my house later that day :) Depending on where you do a Speedtest.Net, I have seen 680 down and 750 up.

Re:I Have VTel Fiber And Am Loving It! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43567643)

That seems so slow :( on my cable I get a steady 4,500 kbs to 6,500, but my upload speed is trash at only 500kbs - 1,000 if I'm lucky.
Sadly I have fork out almost $160 a month for it since I live in a small town area :/ I would kill for a gb connection.

Re:I Have VTel Fiber And Am Loving It! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43567813)

I'm pretty sure the OP means Megabits, not Kilobits. :)

Investing in Infrastructure is not a waste (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43566987)

I live in Vermont. I get so sick of hearing that investing in infrastructure is a waste of money. Investing in America's infrastructure with why we all pay taxes. The 8500 per household is this years cost. Gigabit internet service will be in service for at least 30 years. While the rest of the nation has moved on to faster service i am certain Vermont will still be using this service. Thats the nature of rural America.

Re:Investing in Infrastructure is not a waste (2)

hedwards (940851) | about a year and a half ago | (#43567143)

The issue isn't investing in infrastructure, the issue is how that investment is being done. Rather than spending that same money in more densely populated areas, it's being used to provide high speeds to a much smaller number of people.

What's more astonishing is that bridges collapse from lack of maintenance funds and we're investing in giving a small number of rural voters faster speeds than what's generally available anywhere else.

In short, it's not the infrastructure investment that's a waste, it's the priorities that lead to waste. If there were at least plans for getting the urban areas wired up, I don't think people would view this as wasteful. But ultimately rural residents chose to live there, and one of the downsides to living in the middle of nowhere is that things like this are harder to provide economically.

Re:Investing in Infrastructure is not a waste (1)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | about a year and a half ago | (#43568775)

But ultimately rural residents chose to live there, and one of the downsides to living in the middle of nowhere is that things like this are harder to provide economically.

And this is precisely why government must get involved. Because for-profit companies, the way they're run today, refuse. Because of whiny short-sighted stockholders who sound exactly like you.

Is it impossible to provide rural fiber service economically? No, it's not. It just has a long payback period. Longer than one quarter. Hence for-profit companies won't even try, even though it could be done, and done profitably. Does it take time? Yes. Can it pay for itself, even if government builds and runs it? Yes, if run competently and honestly. Glass fibers are very durable. Bury them deep enough and keep careful enough track of where you buried them, and the wily backhoe can be kept at bay.

These projects only fail because competence and honesty are both in short supply, everywhere, both in government and in corporations. Rural fiber could be deployed across the entire United States, and run at a profit in the end, and the reason I know this is because it's a utility. Utilities always pay, unless your population is literally dying off.

But no, you sit there in your jammies in your mom's basement and whine about rural people getting better internet than you. As if they don't pay taxes. If they're farmers, they pay more in property taxes every year than your annual income. Short-sighted, stupid, petty jealousy. If deploying fiber in densely populated urban areas is so much easier why don't you have it already? Oh right. Because it's not easy. Because it's an investment. Because it has a payback period longer than one quarter. Because you have a for-profit monopoly provider who doesn't have to improve a thing, and can charge you more money every year for the same old shit.

And you wonder why people welcome government involvement? Because the alternative is infrastructure run by greedy morons like you. And you wonder why the roads in your state are crumbling. People like you. The roads in my state improve every year. 802 new or repaired bridges in the past 3 1/2 years alone.

Stop being greedy. Stop thinking only about the next weekend. Stop thinking only about yourself. And stop posting, because you're an idiot.

Re:Investing in Infrastructure is not a waste (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year and a half ago | (#43568405)

Some infrastructure is a good idea. If they launched an initiative to provide 4 lane roads to each neighborhood in rural vermont, thats "infrastructure", and its also "absurd waste".

Not all "investment" is a good investment.

But who needs i? (0, Redundant)

whizbang77045 (1342005) | about a year and a half ago | (#43566995)

Seriously, how many of us really need this level of blinding internet speed? A lot of us may say we want it, but when it comes to paying for it, that's another matter. It's certainly not a basic right, and not something the government should pay for in whole or part.

Re:But who needs i? (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43567191)

agree. just like those who said we didn't need electricity were right as well. Luckily, back then, the great minds and those with foresight won out making sure we didn't waste a cent on the boondoggle of electricity. same thing with computers. really there's a need for only a few computers in the world. hopefully, republicans can kill this just like the roll out of electricity and computers. NOBODY NEEDS THOSE THINGS!!!!

Re:But who needs i? (1)

peragrin (659227) | about a year and a half ago | (#43567999)

All of us.

Cable internet speeds have brought massive amounts of new options for telecommuting, small businesses, etc.

I know one company using a VOIP service across NY state, and when the owner goes to Florida in the winter she is still connected completely. Such things are only possible because of faster Internet speeds, Gigabyte well i can't see the need beyond that but that's only because it hasn't been deployed fully yet.

Rewritten for accuracy :) (0)

davidwr (791652) | about a year and a half ago | (#43567025)

Up to 17,500 rural Vermont subscribers of vTel, a legacy copper telephone company, stand to get gigatons of pork to the home. Funded by a $95 million of taxpayer funds and $55 million in coinvestment from a utility for smart meters, the 1,200 mile-wide pig will cost $8,500 per home - if every subscriber takes the gigabit Internet. Currently the company is doing its best to convince people this is pork they need, but have seen only 600 takers so far. The taxpayer pork barrel is part of $7.2 billion in broadband stimulus funds that seem to have accomplished very little - except turn people into Republicans.

Re:Rewritten for accuracy :) (1)

iggymanz (596061) | about a year and a half ago | (#43567507)

so payback in a little more than 25 years, estimating inflation. what a great investment, *cough*

Re:Rewritten for accuracy :) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43567977)

For a gouvernment, 25 years is a small thing.

And A Side Note About VTel's Telephone Service (5, Interesting)

charles05663 (675485) | about a year and a half ago | (#43567059)

They are by far the best phone company I have every dealt with. They answer the phone on the first ring and will make changes to your phone service while on the phone. I dropped MCI for my long distance after they pissed me off to no end and went to VoIP. I called VTel and had them drop MCI from my account and she made the change while on the phone. I called MCI and told them to drop my account. The lady at MCI asked when I contacted my telephone company and I informed her I just got off the phone with VTel and the did it while on the phone. She argued with me that was impossible. I said then call them. A few minutes later the MCI lady called back and told me she has never seen service like this and I should and I should stick with them. I did as they are very customer oriented and the only other option in town is Comcast.

Is Plymouth Notch a fictional location? (1)

ka9dgx (72702) | about a year and a half ago | (#43567073)

I'm beginning to suspect that Plymouth Notch, Vt. isn't an actual location. The zip code locator can't find it, neither can Zillow. I'd be happy to move to a little hole in the wall in Vermont, if I could get gigabit internet.

No, as thirty seconds research can easily show (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43567155)

Plymouth Notch, VT is a village within the township of Plymouth, VT, zip code 05056. Its primary historical claim to fame is as the birthplace of president Calvin Coolidge (whose many policy shortfalls are more than made up for by the many amusing anecdotes about his taciturn nature). It was isolated for over a week when Hurricane Irene washed out the roads a year and a half ago, and is the home to Plymouth Artisan Cheeses. (www dot plymouth artisan cheese dot com)

It's just one town over from the Killington Ski resort, and as such is one of the wealthier towns in Vermont, on a per capita basis, but that's tending close to a renewal of the act 60 debate which no-one wants to get into here.

Source: I'm a vermonter.

Re:Is Plymouth Notch a fictional location? (1)

cellocgw (617879) | about a year and a half ago | (#43567485)

Hi. I have a house there. It's not a zipcode location, but to the locals, it's quite real enough.

BTW, I'm another VTEL fan. My current DSL line is not quite fast enough to stream video, but otherwise is smokin' powerful. I'm going to get fiber as soon as the truck rolls up the hill.

municipal fiber (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43567207)

There needs to be more municipal fiber in usa. The "free market" hasn't worked.

Re:municipal fiber (1)

iggymanz (596061) | about a year and a half ago | (#43567425)

the free market would work great, if we had one.

what you see is the failure of state capitalism

slashdot isn't what it used to be (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43567357)

All these posts about the evils of government spending and no one posting about moving to rural Vermont?

Long term effects (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43567493)

Regardless of whether it is a good use of money or not, it will be interesting to see the long term effects of putting Gigabit internet access into a rural area.

It will make the area in question far more attractive for tech workers operating from home. An influx of new residents could drive up house and land prices, and benefit the local economy. Of course this might not happen, but it will be interesting to find out if it does.

$8500 per home? seems high (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43567593)

Having recently added a sewer to my home and spending about $4000 in the process ($3000 for the hookup fees + $1000 for connecting to the city sewer), $8500 for running fiber to a house and hooking up to most likely a line on the utility pole seems awful steep.

With the sewer line, the city had to tear up the street, run a line down the middle, connect to another line about a mile away, and charged $3000 for that. The cost for running the sewer from the house to the street involved digging up my yard with a ditch-witch, connecting the line and then backfilling. The plumbers were done in a day, my guess is that the wages for the two totaled about $500 for the day, the other $500 covered profit, materials and tools.

By comparison, I have seen the cable company and also the phone company run new lines to my house and be done in about 30 minutes. Fiber can't be that much harder.

BTW, in both examples I am ignoring the cost of the central facility (a sewage treatment plant, a data switch) which are normally amortirized and paid for by usage fees.

Does fiber really cost that much to run? $140 million seems awful high for an initial capital investment.

Re:$8500 per home? seems high (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43568105)

Construction costs vary greatly, but are generally anywhere from $30,000 - $60,000 per mile of mainline cable (not including customer drops). The VTel project reports to be about 1700 miles of fiber, which means something like $50,000,000+ just for the main cables. Add access equipment, routers, software, and customer premise equipment to convert the optical signal back to electrical, and there's the rest. I don't really think there's much fluff in there. :)

Re:$8500 per home? seems high (1)

eWarz (610883) | about a year and a half ago | (#43568499)

It's not the fiber. it's the utilities. Here in NJ we wanted to get a cable line run to our office. Our local telco (centurylink) apparently owns the poles and wants to charge more than $25,000 per pole for make ready work before the cable company is allowed to run their line. This steep fee effectively ensures that the cable company will never service the offices near our location.

This is idiotic. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43567851)

$8500 per fucking home?

How many of them will actually use bandwidth beyond a few tens of megabits?

Pure idiocy.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?