<b>Randy Bush</b>
<<a href="mailto:nanog%40nanog.org?Subject=So%20why%20don't%20US%20citizens%20get%20this%3F&In-Reply-To=Pine.LNX.4.62.0807271144360.11610%40maverick.blakjak.net" title="So why don't US citizens get this?">randy@psg.com> at <i>Sun Jul 27 08:18:20 UTC 2008 said:</i></a><br>> shoot the messenger, eh?<br><pre>> the fact is that real 100m/100m is about USD30/mo in japan. in the<br>> states, i pay about USD90 for 256k/768k. as far as the internet is<br>> concerned, the united states is a third world country.<br>><br>> randy<br><br>This is exactly my point, why is it that the US is so behind???<br></pre><br>
Lets put aside for a moment the conspiracy theories of government
intervention and
the telcos evil doing, IMHO there is a simple reason why I don't have fiber
going
to my house: geography & economics.
Japan:
- area = 377,873 Km^2
- density = 337/Km^2
- pop = 127.5 mill
USA::
- area = 9,826,630 Km^2
- density = 31/Km^2
- pop = 304.7 mill
I belive there are just few major cities in the US that have a comparable or
higher
concentration of people like other large cities around the world.
I'd bet that if you deploy fiber in a given radious in a suburban area in
Japan you
may reach hundreds or thousands of potential customers, do the same a little
bit
north from where I live and you will reach a dozen guys, 50 cows and a
couple of
hundred chickens.
The US is so spread out that anything to do with transportation, being
people,
packages, or ip packets becomes quite costly.
Still I beleve is interesting to analyze why the US is lagging behind on
high speed
services.
My .02
Sort of makes one wonder how the US came to have ubiquitous roads, or power, or water distribution...
TV
Government intervention - see Federal-Aid Highway Act, Rural Electrification Act, etc.
Ray
Well then, let's take Sweden:
total: 449,964 sq km
This is slightly larger than california. We're 9 million.
I think at least 90% of Swedish households have access to at least ADSL 2M/1M, and 95% of households have access to 384kbit/s UMTS mobile wireless.
ADSL 24M/1M is around USD50 per month, and should be available to a majority of households that live within technical range of COs. 100/10M ETTH is cheaper than ADSL 24M/1M and is available to somewhere around 10-15% of households. Wierdly 100/10M ETTH is more common in the smaller cities because of need of competitive advantage, so more money is spent my real estate owners there to make sure broadband is available.
So, we're 9 million, Californa is what, 60million, on the same surface area. Is there any reason why california, in itself one of the largest economies in the world, seems to have problems delivering anything close to broadband to its inhabitants? So yes, the US must have structural problems here...
I belive there are just few major cities in the US that have
a comparable or higher concentration of people like other
large cities around the world.
So then...
Why do major US cities not have fiber to the home yet?
Of course, here in the UK, FTTH won't go to London first:
<http://www.h2onetworksdarkfibre.com/news/?news=Bournemouth-becomes-the-
UKs-first-Fibrecity>
<http://www.northernireland.gov.uk/news-deti-150108-high-speed-broadband
There are already plans afoot to roll out FTT? darn near everywhere
here.
<http://www.ispreview.co.uk/news/EkEyEpAFykbCFYrArU.html>
FTTC is far more interesting that FTTH, because it is not just a
technology buzzword driven idea, but one based on economics. It is
cheaper to rollout a nice high bandwidth fiber link to most
neighborhoods than to use that fat bundle of copper pairs. But, on the
other hand, it is cheaper to leave that last quarter-mile intact and
only build out fiber where new development is being done.
So the real question that is much more interesting is as follows:
Does the US lag the world in high-speed fiber to the cabinet (FTTC)?
I'd bet that if you deploy fiber in a given radious in a
suburban area in Japan you may reach hundreds or thousands of
potential customers, do the same a little bit north from
where I live and you will reach a dozen guys, 50 cows and a
couple of hundred chickens.
Don't let the copper thieves know where you live. They might show up one
nice Sunday morning bright and early to clean out the county's copper
wire. When I lived in British Columbia, Canada in teh 90's, I noticed
that our incumbent telco was well ahead of the game. They were putting
up fiber everywhere and then following up by cutting the fat copper
cables into sections for recovery of the metal. They even ran fibre into
remote valleys were there were only a few dozen families and it was
probably economically worthwhile because they recovered a higher dollar
value of copper from those remote locations.
Still I beleve is interesting to analyze why the US is
lagging behind on high speed services.
Analysis paralysis perhaps? AKA bipartisan politics.
--Michael Dillon
The US is so spread out that anything to do with transportation, being people, packages, or ip packets becomes quite costly.
Well then, let's take Sweden:
total: 449,964 sq km
This is slightly larger than california. We're 9 million.
I think at least 90% of Swedish households have access to at least ADSL 2M/1M, and 95% of households have access to 384kbit/s UMTS mobile wireless.
So, we're 9 million, Californa is what, 60million, on the same surface area. Is there any reason why california, in itself one of the largest economies in the world, seems to have problems delivering anything close to broadband to its inhabitants? So yes, the US must have structural problems here...
Have you tried to use any "distribution of people" function on your numbers?
Here in CZ we have more railroads than you in SE or California in US have. But I'm very far away to argue that Sweden or California have structural problems ...
Regards
Michal
In article <2B12539A-2240-455C-9CE4-06F1DFA94E00@eyeconomics.com> you write:
Sort of makes one wonder how the US came to have ubiquitous roads, or
power, or water distribution...
Oh, but that's different. They were important.
Or, to be more specific, people everywhere need power and water and were willing to pay for them, so other people started companies to provide them everywhere. Roads are a little more complicated - the basic roads were there due to demand, but the highways got built because the Army argued that without highways they couldn't move troops and supplies to defend the country in case of an invasion. The same trick got science funded for a while... 
Oh, but that's different. They were important.
What is the key criterion here for identifying odious off topic correspondents and the public naming thereof?
Well, to be exact, there was the political will to get the job done and a more pragmatic approach than we see today in the States.
The interstate highway was created by the Federal goverment, not the private sector. And although the difficulties in moving troops in WWII was an issue, everyone recognized that a great nation requires a modern transportation. Similarly, one does not need a car in France - there is a seamless tram, metro, regional railroad, intercity and international train system. Political will, not private enterprise.
The Europeans took a more pragmatic to broadband whereas the Yanks (and I am one) got bogged down into ideological battles over private property, etc.
The Asians were also pragmatic. Asian governments told the private sector (incumbents) that they had moral obligation to provide broadband and they did it.
Regards,
Roderick S. Beck
Director of European Sales
Hibernia Atlantic
13-15, rue Sedaine, 75011 Paris
http://www.hiberniaatlantic.com
Wireless: 1-212-444-8829.
French Wireless: 33-6-14-33-48-97.
AOL Messenger: GlobalBandwidth
rod.beck@hiberniaatlantic.com
rodbeck@erols.com
``Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.'' Albert Einstein.
Actually ubiquitous power came from a government mandate and funding known as the Rural Electrification Act. The former Bell system left many areas of the country without telephone service and the same act set up the "Rural Telco's" to this day I am served by "Kearsarge Telephone Co" at home which serves a large chunk of Central NH.
Ultimately the 'Market' always fails in corner cases and Government in the form of regulation and sometimes funding needs to step in as human nature never changes and greed still dominates in the end not so much that these areas are unprofitable to service it's just that with the same investment more money can be made elsewhere. From a accounting standpoint this is rational behavior from a societal standpoint this behavior is counterproductive. Government is not 'The Answer" as many people feel but it does have a valuable role in balancing financial and societal needs.
One of the societal needs today is reasonably priced high speed internet otherwise the US will fall behind in developing next generation network services as low speed DSL simply does not get the job done reasonably priced does not mean $100US for a 384/768 "Business DSL" which is the only thing I can run VPN over. This infrastructure is important today as electricity was in the 20's and 30's
Laird Popkin wrote:
FTTC is far more interesting that FTTH, because it is not just a
technology buzzword driven idea, but one based on economics. It is
cheaper to rollout a nice high bandwidth fiber link to most
neighborhoods than to use that fat bundle of copper pairs. But, on the
other hand, it is cheaper to leave that last quarter-mile intact and
only build out fiber where new development is being done.
It is cheaper to bore fiber and attach more remote systems than to use the already existing copper? I'm curious how you come up with those economics. (seriously, that wasn't sarcasm)
So the real question that is much more interesting is as follows:
Does the US lag the world in high-speed fiber to the cabinet (FTTC)?
Good question. I'd say my little backwoods part of the world is roughly 10% FTTC, probably less.
Don't let the copper thieves know where you live. They might show up one
nice Sunday morning bright and early to clean out the county's copper
wire. When I lived in British Columbia, Canada in teh 90's, I noticed
that our incumbent telco was well ahead of the game. They were putting
up fiber everywhere and then following up by cutting the fat copper
cables into sections for recovery of the metal. They even ran fibre into
remote valleys were there were only a few dozen families and it was
probably economically worthwhile because they recovered a higher dollar
value of copper from those remote locations.
Yeah, mom was a little aggravated that she lost her connectivity in the valley out in El Salvador because one weekend thieves stole the entire stretch of copper down the mountain off the poles.
Still I beleve is interesting to analyze why the US is lagging behind on high speed services.
Analysis paralysis perhaps? AKA bipartisan politics.
I have a high speed cable competitor here in town. They love sucking up the competitive profits in town. Of course, our plant footprint by law is about 20 times theirs. They weren't required to service pop and his cows 20 miles out where you'll never catch up on costs. Estimated population is roughly 5-6k. I've heard similar issues with CLEC's in small population areas. They suck up the profitable areas, and stay out of the areas where you will *never* recover your money. This was the whole point of regulation to begin with in my opinion; to ensure that every household had a phone line, even if it lost money.
Of course, who cares about the rural areas. They always get the fallout from regulation changes made with the big cities in mind. If the want fiber to every home, they'll either have to up their incentives or remove the competition to average out profits. Forcing competition to the same requirements as the incumbent should effectively kill them off in the rural exchanges and keep them in the big cities. The last I checked, NTT didn't have to compete for their high profit areas while losing money on the fringes (I presume Japan still has SOME rural areas?).
Jack
I think it is simply the matter of ROI - Return on Investment - issue.
I'm still living in the area without city water, and when there is power
outage, I don't have water at all since my water pump still needs
electricity.
But some rural area has FTTH because of government funding RUS
(http://www.usda.gov/rus/) project.
And most of urban area, people are still happy with cable modem service.
People in Japan and South Korea are more of tendency to become
early-adapters.
So when they have new products, they wants to try it by majority.
But in U.S., we are still cost oriented, and if we don't need it, we
don't buy it. ^^
That's my 2 cents.
Hyun
Tom Vest wrote:
It is cheaper to bore fiber and attach more remote systems
than to use the already existing copper? I'm curious how you
come up with those economics.
(seriously, that wasn't sarcasm)
First point is that you can sell the copper. Second is that you can
reduce the number of local loop faults because the local loop is digital
to the fiber cabinets. Local loop faults seem to be a major cause of
overtime work in telcos. The cause of the faults is numerous including
stretched copper, cracked insulation, moisture in the bundles, rodents,
etc. Have you ever seen the huge bundles of copper wires that come into
a telephone exchange? Once you have seen this in person and you
understand the complexity of cutting those loops, and splicing, and
recutting, and resplicing over many decades, then you will see where it
might be cheaper overall to just replace them with OC48 over fiber. Or
GigE or whatever, but make it digital and make it go on glass fiber
cables.
Yeah, mom was a little aggravated that she lost her
connectivity in the valley out in El Salvador because one
weekend thieves stole the entire stretch of copper down the
mountain off the poles.
Here in London they even steel bronze statues or brass railings in a
park to get the copper content. Here is one account of the risks that
copper thieves will go to. Don't read it if you have a queasy stomach.
> Analysis paralysis perhaps? AKA bipartisan politics.
This was the whole point of regulation to begin with in my
opinion; to ensure that every household had a phone line,
even if it lost money.
And the day will dawn when governments realize that the technology used
to supply service is irrelevant, but everyone needs to have a reliable
connection to the Internet. They may even mandate that every connection
has to include an emergency voice service that is the old -48VDC POTS in
disguise. Today the USA and the rest of the world is still in the
pioneering experimental stage of figuring out what works. If Russia
forges ahead with FTTH broadband everywhere, just watch how quickly you
see bipartisan agreement in the USA.
Of course, who cares about the rural areas.
Do you eat?
Anyway there is history in the USA of treating rural areas as a apecial
case such as the Rural Electrification programs. The rural people didn't
need electricity and could have gotten on just fine without it as they
had for centuries before. Even industrialised countries like Russia and
Ukraine still have rural areas where there is essentially no
electricity, or very occasional and unreliable electricity. Different
countries choose different priorities, but over time there seems to be
general convergence of all countries onto a basic set of modern services
that they want to deliver to their entire population.
Some things can be done with competitive markets, and other things
cannot. It's all about figuring out which measures to apply to which
problems, not about taking a political ideology like communism and
forcing it upon every aspect of people's lives. That has been proven to
not work and people who call for free-market everything need to realize
that they are trodding the same wellworn path that communists travelled
in the last century.
Furthermore, most Americans alive today do not really remember what a
free market was like. When was the last time you travelled in an
unregulated cab, ate in an unregulated restaurant, etc.?
Even this mailing list is attempting to impose constraints on the free
market of network design and operations. Best practices become embodied
in vendor products and even people who don't necessarily want to follow
the best practices for good technical reasons, can't find the equipment
to do it or the people who will build it differently.
--Michael Dillon
As if you believe in network externalities (each additional network node increases the value of the entire network) and I certainly do, then there is reason to believe a purely private market will not serve enough customers.
Each customer decides to join the network based on their private calculus of cost and benefit and disregards the benefit everyone else gains from their joining the network.
Similarly, I pay for my mother's phone so I can reach her.
Roderick S. Beck
Director of European Sales
Hibernia Atlantic
13-15, rue Sedaine, 75011 Paris
http://www.hiberniaatlantic.com
Wireless: 1-212-444-8829.
French Wireless: 33-6-14-33-48-97.
AOL Messenger: GlobalBandwidth
rod.beck@hiberniaatlantic.com
rodbeck@erols.com
``Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.'' Albert Einstein.
Her cell phone.
Roderick S. Beck
Director of European Sales
Hibernia Atlantic
13-15, rue Sedaine, 75011 Paris
http://www.hiberniaatlantic.com
Wireless: 1-212-444-8829.
French Wireless: 33-6-14-33-48-97.
AOL Messenger: GlobalBandwidth
rod.beck@hiberniaatlantic.com
rodbeck@erols.com
``Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.'' Albert Einstein.
Jorge Amodio wrote:
I belive there are just few major cities in the US that have a comparable or
higher
concentration of people like other large cities around the world.
Does population density still REALLY matter ? Considering that fibre
optic cables have a far longer reach than copper, and considering that
the utility poles already exist in less densely populated areas, it
would seem to me that fibre would be a superior alternative to copper,
especially when you consider the costs of setting up remotes all over
the place for copper.
And I would reckon that laying fibre along existing utility poles to
reach 200 homes would cost far less than laying fibre in a concrete high
rise appartment building to reach 200 appartments.
The way I view it, telco accountants have build *excuses* to not lay
fibre instead of finding ways to justify laying it.
Jean-Fran�ois Mezei wrote:
Does population density still REALLY matter ? Considering that fibre
optic cables have a far longer reach than copper, and considering that
the utility poles already exist in less densely populated areas, it
would seem to me that fibre would be a superior alternative to copper,
especially when you consider the costs of setting up remotes all over
the place for copper.And I would reckon that laying fibre along existing utility poles to
reach 200 homes would cost far less than laying fibre in a concrete high
rise appartment building to reach 200 appartments.
My understanding is that for a rural area, in a completely new rollout or a forklift upgrade, fiber is cheaper than copper. However, because the majority of the copper that is currently deployed is still highly serviceable, it is very difficult to justify tearing out perfectly good copper and laying out fiber in it's place.
And I would reckon that laying fibre along existing utility poles to
reach 200 homes would cost far less than laying fibre in a concrete high
rise appartment building to reach 200 appartments.Problem is not laying fiber between poles, the last mile has been always
the show killer.
200 local loops + terminating equipment surely will cost more than 1 local
loop + terminating equipment.
My .02