gut;1611648 wrote:No, there's two parts. One is connecting homes wirelessly and that's already pretty close (basically your cellphone). Yeah, 4G or probably advanced LTE.

The second part is the actual backbone, but now you're just building super highways instead of side streets and alleys - the cost drops maybe 90% and that removes a significant barrier to competition. Cities and states might even build that themselves, deciding it's a more valuable public asset.

Cost to build and maintain the connection all the way to the home is significant. But the existing internet infrastructure can't handle delivering everyone's capable, too. But like I said the economics become much more favorable if you only have to upgrade a super highway. And actually a big part of declining investment is the refusal of cities to grant necessary easements.

10 years seems optimistic, but with technology it usually happens much quicker than expected.

I Wear Pants;1613879 wrote:Yeah it is expensive, which is why taxpayers gave ISPs like $200 billion to build it out. Which they didn't, and of course they didn't return any of that money.

I Wear Pants;1613879 wrote:Yeah it is expensive, which is why taxpayers gave ISPs like $200 billion to build it out. Which they didn't, and of course they didn't return any of that money.

sportchampps;1613962 wrote:So who gets ohio twc

sportchampps;1613962 wrote:So who gets ohio twc

dlazz;1616642 wrote:FCC voted to do the fast-lane BS today. One of the people who voted 'yes' stated she didn't take into account the future and yet voted yes anyway.

The internet as we know it might be dying.