Linked by Howard Fosdick on Thu 24th Jan 2013 10:12 UTC
Permalink for comment 550377
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 14:35 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/11/13 17:07 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/10/13 23:13 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/08/13 14:57 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/07/13 11:40 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/04/13 12:45 UTC
Linked by nfeske on 05/31/13 10:12 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/29/13 16:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-12
It really is a matter of finance -- in particular that NOBODY in this economy is planning a long term outlay for new infrastructure given the high initial investment. Copper costs money, fiber costs money, and NOBODY is going to pony up the front money to run the new lines needed to handle it when there's an existing infrastructure they can charge more for -- and that to be frank isn't even paid off yet in many places!
That's why so much effort went into re-using the existing copper in the first place! Sure in a handful of crowded cities you might maybe see FiOS -- but don't count on seeing it in places like Northern New Hampshire, Western Maine or the Dakota's where 33.6 dialup is a good day; you'd think the population density in such places was below 20 people per square mile or something.
What, you thought the places with the highest speed landlines corresponding to the highest population densities was a coincidence?