Why can't the rich get access to gigabit while the poor has access to a few megabit?
Just like ten years ago, when the rich had access to megabit and the poor used kilobit access.
Or ten years before that, when the richest could pay for high kilobit access while the poor were stuck to dialup low kilobit access.
I don't understand what's wrong with a long term rollout plan that finances the future scale with large costs to those willing to pay them.
Is it wrong because it's a utility? Why aren't we up in arms about the non-megabit (or barely megabit) non-low-latency access that so much of rural america is already stuck with?
I just don't get this. Fiber will get cheaper, but only if we train tens thousands about it in smaller rollouts while building up the supply side with increasingly larger rollouts.
We may want to avoid a scenario where fiber is unregulated, then incumbent ISPs also get deregulated out of fairness (Austin is currently at this step), then incumbent ISPs stop maintaining/installing service in poor areas, so rich people get gigabit and poor people get no bits at all.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/nov/17/local/la-me-1118-lop...
Paid roads with less traffic, etc. or paid lanes are a commonplace, OTOH, but one doesn't have to be exactly rich to use them.
There's always a fixed labor cost for laying the pipes, but the endpoint hardware for fiber is currently pretty pricey. Compare to cable, whose modems used to be hundreds of dollars, and can now be had for $30.