net neutrality commercials?

[der.hans]

Am 19. Dec, 2006 schwätzte Jim so:

> Agreed Dan.  South Korea is much smaller than the U.S.  Less fiber is
> needed to provide access to all it's people.
>
> Let's look at it this way.  You've got a high rise apartment building
> with a thousand people in it.  Also you've got a thousand people in
> single family homes equally distributed across a thousand  square miles.
>
> Which instance will require more fiber to bring broadband to everyone in
> that group?  Which group will have more customers per mile?  Which group
> will be more profitable for the company that owns the fiber?

The answer might not be what you expect ( and likely due to the answers
for questions you didn't ask ).

Cox avoided downtown Tempe in the rollout of their cable modem rollout.
Presumably because they thought the students would use more bandwidth than
average. They also avoided apartment buildings. Maybe that was due to
billing and getting agreements with apartment complex owners.

The initial Cox rollout was into physically seperate wealthy
neighborhoods. It seemed they were seeking people who could afford it, but
wouldn't be using it all too much.

After initial tests they probably also avoided neighborhoods likely to
have ham operators for a while :).

In city doesn't necessarily mean close to the CO.

I agree with your base premise, but population density is not the only
factor.

Would wireless actually favor sparsly populated cities?

ciao,

der.hans
-- 
#  https://www.LuftHans.com/        http://www.CiscoLearning.org/
#  Join the League of Professional System Administrators  https://LOPSA.org/
#  Schließlich verteidigt Amerika Freiheit. Und Freiheit beginnt mit dem Wort.
#    -- Gunter Grass