On Sat, 2004-10-16 at 01:18, Lars Aronsson wrote: > Joel Jaeggli wrote: > > traditional arguement by entrenched monopolists against public-owned > > fiber projects. > > This was my impression too. Trenches should be good for fibers, but > these are of a different kind. Who is this Matt Smith who wrote that > article, and how is he connected with the industry interests? > > >From a European point of view, it is incomprehensible that American > cities are so late in building their own fiber infrastructure. This > article's talk about "mountains" of tax dollars is ridiculous. Anybody > understands that 3 or 400,000 dollars is no money when the city of San > Francisco overhauls its network of sewer pipes. The real money is in > things like asphalt, bridges and utility pipes. Communication cables > is just icing on the cake.
The 400,000 are just the investment costs for the initial study. Imagine what the real costs for fiber would be. Wi-Fi is a darn cheap high speed alternative. > > No wireless technology can compete with fiber in providing the last > mile of broadband Internet connectivity to households and offices in a > densely populated city. Oh yes it can. First in ease of access. Picrute yourself sitting at a cafe and conneting with 11 or 54 Mbit to your homenetwork or your work. Secondly, at this moment, wi-fi is fast enough for most households and offices. Thirdly the cost are a VERY SMALL fraction of the costs for fiber. Regards, Roland van Laar > Mixing this with talk of wireless cell phones > is only trying to confuse the issue. Are we talking kilobits or > gigabits? Does the journalist know the difference? > _______________________________________________ BAWUG's general wireless chat mailing list [unsubscribe] http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
