.
Printable View
.
VoIP isn't as stable as the PSTN (,i.e. the classic telephone network).Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanley514
and many people now have cell phones instead of land lines, so I don't know how soon VoIP will be universal.
.
Circuit switched voice is inherently more reliable than VoIP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanley514
That, and land lines still work in this part of the world even when the power goes out and your phone battery goes flat with no way to charge it.
.
The initial cost of infrastructure and installation is only one aspect. There is continuous maintenance of any system to consider as well. Additionally, land must be purchased upon which to site any infrastructure and proper zoning and permissions acquired. There was a great deal of contention when our ISP wanted to situate a communications tower in the middle of a subdivision because many people did not want it in their neighborhood. As far as a cost per user system goes, I live in a territory with less than 40,000 people. Our entire existence in this region is heavily subsidized by the Federal government. We are more like an 'occupying force' retaining ownership of this land and it's resources on behalf of our nation.
Numbers on paper do not reflect the ground truth of the situation, especially in rugged, remote terrain with sparse population. There may be an argument for same in more densely populated regions but there is already considerable competition in the area of communications and it is quite tightly regulated in Canada.
.
I do know know what the actual figures are, but I was making the point that there is much more cost to any communications system than only the initial infrastructure. One reason that we do not have competition in the Yukon is that the population base is too small to make it worthwhile for another company to come in and attempt to license and install it's own network. Competition has to rent the existing infrastructure from the monopoly holder which limits how competitive that they are able to be. My Smartphone is with Telus while hubby's is with Bell/Northwestel, the monopoly holder. We used to have several small companies competing for the internet market here but they all got gobbled back up by Northwestel which effectively controls all communications except ham radio operators.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanley514
.
In the United States the regulatory environment has a tremendous effect. The various competing communications technologies, cellphones, cable TV, satellite, and POTS (plain old telephone service) all have staffs of lobbyists in Washington trying to get legislation passed that benefits their particular version of communications technology at the expense of the others. The resulting laws only make sense when you consider they are designed to give advantages to the most effective lobbying groups rather than benefit the general public. Unfortunately the U.S. voting public largely ignores congress, so this sort of crap has become routine.
To answer the OP's specific question, until very recently, an ILEC (incumbent local exchange carrier, or traditional phone company), was not allowed to provide any service to an end user unless they also provided a landline. It was flatly illegal for them to do so. A regulation that makes no sense from the consumer's point of view, but makes great sense from the point of view the ILEC's competitors' lobbyists who got the law passed in congress.
.
There's a large number of rural Americans in the same boat, no access to cell phone coverage (like me less than 20 miles from a State capital), and poor or non existent broadband.Quote:
Originally Posted by scheherazade
In my wife and I search of nearly a dozen places for a bit of land, even a small water feature, with broad band, we scratched 8 of them off the list for lack of broadband or cell phone. Most of these were in Western WA state, which not only is rather rural but has had a depressed economy for nearly two decades--a situation that will only get worse with the poor communications infrastructure. We finally found a home and I move next week...still no cell phone coverage, but we'll be able to patch into a local development for cable (at a cost to run 1/4 miles of underground lines).
This is one area that's so vital to economics it shouldn't be left entirely up to private enterprise--because rural areas might never make sense to a cell phone provider. At least in the Us considered part of the highway system and thus a government responsibility to help build or strongly incentivise businesses for development like electrical utilities.
I lived for 6 years in North Eastern Washington state and there was only one cell provider, and any driving into the area outside the valley and you lost that service. There was only one poor broadband internet provider and it was spotty at best usually. Land lines are still vital to many areas.
Paleoichneum, if you remember correctly AT&T has service in the northern part of the county and it the middle, whereas Verizon only had service around town. The broadband provider is pretty crummy. But now they have competition with Frontier.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paleoichneum