One way to bring $35/month gigabit to Chatt

From: Phil Shapiro 
So if Chatt were to simply secede from Tennessee and join Vermont, then 
$35/month gigabit could be a reality for all in town. See today's Wall 
Street Journal blog post at 

I love the idea of highway signs in Georgia saying: "Approaching Vermont - 5 miles" 



Phil Shapiro, 

"Wisdom begins with wonder." - Socrates 
"Learning happens thru gentleness." 

=============================================================== From: Mike Harrison ------------------------------------------------------ If the taxpayers and their government give me $100k.. I'll run 100gb fiber between the 12 houses on my street and charge them $35/month for part of the 1gb upstream I can buy for $350.00 and show a profit of $70 per month.. right? I'm kidding. My point is that the media is showing a very weird and limited perspective of a much bigger infrastructure play. Locally, EPB received > 100 million in funds from the feds for reaching < 170k homes. For example, mine does not have EPB fiber. But pretending that that money hit every home, that's: 588 per home. I'll guess it costs them more than that to run a fiber optics drop, and put the electronics on the house..I know it does. It's a long term gamut for increased recurring revenues from internet, video, phone services. I hope it works out for them otherwise my tax money was wasted. --Mike--

=============================================================== From: Dave Brockman ------------------------------------------------------ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 If you can acquire 12 or more 100GB ports for $100k, I'm in! :) Based on the copper, gas and electric examples of our past, I'd say the first FTTH/FTTC will "earn" the "natural monopoly" for the next half-century or so. Should be pretty hard to eff that up. Regards, dtb -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRgSKLAAoJEMP+wtEOVbcdH9IIAIBKDxyfH3PERDB5C4OGXjcL 15tJi4+Z7iFS8gUH619YxJ2J3VmKeyQ5KZZElnszAdFomA22WdGvAGzxZfqQFaVa 39uwfsj2Su4srOHbnxDQDN/erNwC/TsfRvqLZ2DJ5xjr2CTNf2sLb0N+6VHJbw0F 4yORyS1E3P9WhATG8CUZK3GZQ1g1uoXp3Es1ZlzuLdmn29kWjIlLBMbqlftpEW11 GzUP/BasgE6nlIKOwBUOekCSXS5J8s9ORIzewOdDwmD1JZcnTOm7eW411P2zRIFZ PuxxKJ8MUGafwyyCUu8i+hsax3JN+4L/FsCouB8DwFo8xfe8wcP3lC899pW9Hcs= =gZdU -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

=============================================================== From: Dan Lyke ------------------------------------------------------ Discussion yesterday afternoon about how the actual profit in a CLEC comes from the $6.50 "Voice Federal Subscriber Line Charge Fee", which is part of why it's more difficult or expensive to buy a data line without voice. And the "Voice Federal Universal Service Fund Fee" is a straight out payment to the big carriers, unless you can run a scam like these guys and get a cut for running fiber to nowhere. It won't be first, or fastest, it'll be whoever plays the Congress most effectively. Dan

=============================================================== From: Dave Brockman ------------------------------------------------------ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

=============================================================== From: John Aldrich ------------------------------------------------------ I currently work at an ILEC (Windstream) and we have Fiber To The Premises in some markets. I believe we are required to resell that to CLECs who want to resell our service. I know we are running into issues with upgrading DSLAMs in some markets because there are 3rd-party customers and the reseller doesn't have a GigE connection to us, so we have to a) leave the 3rd-party customers where they are or b) move the 3rd-party customers to another device that isn't going GigE, or c) leave the whole DSLAM alone if we can't do A or B (i.e. there is no other DSLAM with an ATM uplink.)

=============================================================== From: Dan Lyke ------------------------------------------------------ Yeah, my cynicism comes from recently having read a history of AT&T running the rural telecoms out of business through legislative and policy maneuvering. I wouldn't put money on either way. Dan

=============================================================== From: John Aldrich ------------------------------------------------------ I honestly don't think AT&T wants Windstream's (formerly Alltel) customers - most of them are in very rural areas. It would probably cost them too much to offer service in our area or in some of the other small ILEC areas (thinking Ringgold Telephone, Ellijay Telephone, etc.)

=============================================================== From: gary hasty ------------------------------------------------------ But we do love that spectrum we bought from ya.