Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Robert Douglas who wrote (166320)	6/14/2002 1:20:31 PM
From: tcmay	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

"Two or three years ago they dug up the entire street in front of our office building (20 stories) and for almost a mile down the road. I saw every conceivable pipe and wire in the construction....so I thought." Yes, in a grid of N streets by M streets, some fraction of the segments will be dug up in any given time period T. How long will it take before there is some percentage likelihood that a particular point A will have been linked to some other particular point B by dug up roads? This is a standard percolation problem (like connection of oil reservoirs, or percolation of water through a network of cavities). My contention is that people will not be happy with such a "patchwork quilt" of waiting for roads to be dug up. It is more efficient to lay fiber when it is needed. And where it is needed. This is what has happened where fiber has already been laid: the trucks come out with the trench saws, the narrow trench is cut, the conduit is dropped in from rolls, the trench is sealed. Expensive? Yes. But would it have been cheaper to wait until, say, Tasman Drive in Santa Clara was "dug up"? Obviously not. "Two months ago, I called to get broadband cable service and was told that my building couldn't get it. When I asked why, they said there wasn't a fiber optic cable running down the street. Now that's planning. " Take it up with your cable company. Sounds like standard, inefficient business. It's not the function of government to supply your building with cable or fiber. (Or even electricity. Those in places without electricity have to pay a pretty penny to have power lines sent to their properties. And even builders in areas _with_ power have to pay a fee to have power brought to houses under construction. Electricity is certainly more important than broadband, and yet there is no government subsidy, modulo b.s. like the TVA, currently in place. "Rural electrification" is, lest anyone bring it up, substantially different from sending fiber out to office buildings or homes.) --Tim May --Tim May

To: Robert Douglas who wrote (166320)	6/14/2002 8:03:05 PM
From: ptanner	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

re: utility construction coordination Some interesting discussion on the topic and as a civil engineer I thought I would toss in some comments. Road projects sometimes do include duct work for future utility installation. Governments don't like having newly paved roads marred by utility trenches. However, as pointed out by tcmay the potential for duct installation is limited as it requires a network to be effective. In specific instances like dense business districts it makes sense but otherwise is a cost for which the funds may not be available. A more workable solution is for coordination of construction activities. Most governments plan major road work well in advance which allows for the other utility provides to consider whether to upgrade or extend their own facilities. This reduces the overall construction cost, inconveniences and results in the highest quality roadway. Road construction or reconstruction does not typically excavate down the desired depth for most buried utilities. However, it does require a shallower excavation and the final surface restoration is covered by the road paving as opposed to a far more costly patch. WRT the last mile problem I think this should be left to the market. Wireless IMO seems the most practical as it should offer lower initial cost and should be scalable as demands increase. Wireless telephone systems are enabling service in developing countries that while densely populated may have sparse initial customers. As demand increases... additional cells can be added. A wired system would have been prohibitive. Now for that tree that is in the way... well perhaps a future cell installation will remove the problem. There may always be locations which are not economical to serve and after the industry has matured then I might be in favor of some "universal access charge" to assist. But absolutely not as part of an initial development. I don't see broadband as an essential public service and lower service alternatives are already available (dial-up). -PT (of course I already have broadband and can choose cable or DSL)