tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Kansas City, MO
clubs:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| People in rural areas aren't getting screwed
They chose to live out there where it costs far more to deliver EVERYTHING: food, fuel, and broadband. Why does it come as some surprise every time a company says "it just doesn't make financial sense to deliver to sparsely populated, rural markets"?
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara |
|
sharksfan3
Premium
join:2004-02-16
Pleasant Valley, NY
 ·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by tiger72  :They chose to live out there where it costs far more to deliver EVERYTHING: food, fuel, and broadband. By your logic the largest cities in the country are the cheapest places to live... |
|
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Kansas City, MO
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
edit:
May 2nd, @12:28PM
| said by sharksfan3 :said by tiger72 :They chose to live out there where it costs far more to deliver EVERYTHING: food, fuel, and broadband. By your logic the largest cities in the country are the cheapest places to live... Let me rephrase then. The cost to the telco to set up a single tower for WiMax in a city is equal to the cost for a telco to set up single tower near some town out in rural Kansas. Because of population density, however, the number of potential subscribers in the city make it a worthwhile investment because they have exponentially higher odds of seeing a return on that investment.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara |
|
sharksfan3
Premium
join:2004-02-16
Pleasant Valley, NY
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by tiger72 :said by sharksfan3 :said by tiger72 :They chose to live out there where it costs far more to deliver EVERYTHING: food, fuel, and broadband. By your logic the largest cities in the country are the cheapest places to live... Let me rephrase then. The cost to the telco to set up a single tower for WiMax in a city is equal to the cost for a telco to set up single tower near some town out in rural Kansas. Because of population density, however, the number of potential subscribers in the city make it a worthwhile investment because they have exponentially higher odds of seeing a return on that investment. Thats better  |
|
wifi4milez
In Need Of Garbage Pail Kids 1st Series
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| reply to tiger72
said by tiger72 :Let me rephrase then. The cost to the telco to set up a single tower for WiMax in a city is equal to the cost for a telco to set up single tower near some town out in rural Kansas. Well, not really. The cost of the wireless equipment is the same, but nothing else is. In rural areas you can literally erect a 200 foot tower to put your equipment on. In cities, you need to negotiate roof rights with each building you want to place equipment on. Some buildings charge between a few hundred dollars per month, all the way up to to a few thousand dollars per month, for a 1 foot by 2 foot (if you are lucky!) space. Power costs are different, permit costs are different, bandwidth costs are different, its truly an apples to (Japanese) square watermelons comparison. Furthermore, you might not even use the same radios in an urban environment, meaning you cant even compare that.
--
Весна прибыла |
|
Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA
·Comcast
 ·SONIC.NET
| reply to tiger72
said by tiger72 :They chose to live out there where it costs far more to deliver EVERYTHING: food, fuel, and broadband. Why does it come as some surprise every time a company says "it just doesn't make financial sense to deliver to sparsely populated, rural markets"? Urbanites pay more for dense-based rent, so they can pay less for services, and rural people pay more for services, so they can pay less for spacious rent. The Kingdom will let them have more space for less if they only pay more for their services.
Geographically, financially, and fairly, it makes perfect sense, and I don't want to circumvent that with income redistribution of any sort.
However, one place it doesn't make sense is technologically: radios in dense areas go less far because of congestion, and in rural areas go further because of lack of congestion. What is a cell phone to an urbanite could be a high bandwidth long distance backhaul to a ruralite. Those rural people could go ahead and build their own radio tower at their own house, and eventually use technology to link their home radio network to their neighbors so they could roam, and make their own cell networks and such. So, technologically, those ruralites could have a nice network if they wanted to. Probably never at the great efficiencies of the urbanites, though; to every ruralite who wants equal cost data service to what the urbanites pay, I tell them to pay the per-square-foot cost of what the urbanites pay for all of their space and all the other higher costs of urban dwelling (allow criminals to steal at the same rates, pay the same taxes for city social services, etc. etc. etc.). And if not that, make them fully subsidize urban dwelling to the point it costs as little per square foot as rural dwelling, as part of the plan to bring them the same cost data service as the urban people. THEN let's see what they have to say about the broadband penetration cost of rural America. |
|
Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA | reply to wifi4milez
Sure you can compare different radio types. |
|
wifi4milez
In Need Of Garbage Pail Kids 1st Series
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| said by Ulmo :Sure you can compare different radio types. Of course, but generally speaking a "comparison" is made between two (or more) things similar to one another. One could theoretically compare sushi and hamburgers, however that wouldnt be a very good comparison now would it!
--
Весна прибыла |
|
brandpc
join:2003-08-25
Canton, CT | Well... what qualifies it as not being a good comparision?
You are comparing two different types of food.. seems logical to me. |
|
wifi4milez
In Need Of Garbage Pail Kids 1st Series
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| said by brandpc :Well... what qualifies it as not being a good comparision? You are comparing two different types of food.. seems logical to me. But thats just the point. A comparison by definition is the examining of two similar things to determine how they differ. It wouldnt make sense to compare to completely different things such as sushi and steak given that there is no common ground.
said by Merriam Webster Dictionary :
a: the representing of one thing or person as similar to or like another b: an examination of two or more items to establish similarities
--
Весна прибыла |
|
