"Our analysis finds that AT&T has built its all-fiber network disproportionately in higher income communities. "
This isn't bad. I was thinking of proposing this exact thing for a local, high-speed ISP. I was going to say focus on denser, high-income residential and city just because you recover your costs back faster. On top of that, it's easier to upsell them on high-margin services that increase either profit or growth. The backbones-connected sites where ISP's can get cheaper bandwidth [in long run] are also usually close to such areas since they were similarly targeting profitable regions. Now, I have less data on that last claim to say how often its true or exactly how close customers are. I've just often seen cases where new ISP's might be able to get a quick start targeting the homes or businesses physically close to those sites for cheaper fiber. A bootstrap option.
"However, the copper could be replaced by wireless networks instead of fiber in areas where fiber rollouts aren't cost-effective. AT&T is deploying a 10Mbps fixed wireless service in order to meet its Connect America Fund obligations."
Now, this is a decent idea. NEPA, a small ISP with wireless, was already here showing it can work:
I, too, would target the areas that would quickly récup the costs of the fiber I just paid out. Why deploy if people can't afford $100+/month internet service? (guessing on that price.. I pay $120 for 200mbps today)
I see Ars is at it again with its Liberal class warfare articles.
I find it humorous how we complain about how low income families are having such a hard time being trampled under foot by the out of control corporate greed. And here we are, complaining about. . .
Internet access that's only 768Kbps.
I mean, are you really still that poor if you can afford a smartphone, internet access, a computer, a wireless router and a cable modem? I've been to places in South Africa and Haiti where people are just happy to have clean water to wash their clothes and drink.
The notion that we are making a big deal out of this is absurd and laughable.
The problem is that cell service and sometimes Internet services are becoming close to a necessity for getting jobs or cheap goods. There's a lot of people in rural areas kind of stuck because they don't have such things or have them periodically. I know some. Two of my family members were in that situation with one sort of out of it now. She got a job right after I bought her a single month of phone time. She had to borrow time on our PC and Internet to do all the online applications. All she needed were two things hard to get for the poor.
>I mean, are you really still that poor if you can afford a smartphone, internet access, a computer, a wireless router and a cable modem?
Yes, you definitely can be. Credit and renting exist as an option and all that you mention can be had for $250 or less if bought outright. More often than not, where I live homeless people have smartphones.
Also, the things you listed above are a prerequisite for even the most menial of jobs. To apply for low wage work at a retailer at Best Buy, yiu have to apply online.
Remember, a lot of what is funding people's lives is debt and a scarily high number of working people would lose their residence within a few months if they lost their job.
This isn't bad. I was thinking of proposing this exact thing for a local, high-speed ISP. I was going to say focus on denser, high-income residential and city just because you recover your costs back faster. On top of that, it's easier to upsell them on high-margin services that increase either profit or growth. The backbones-connected sites where ISP's can get cheaper bandwidth [in long run] are also usually close to such areas since they were similarly targeting profitable regions. Now, I have less data on that last claim to say how often its true or exactly how close customers are. I've just often seen cases where new ISP's might be able to get a quick start targeting the homes or businesses physically close to those sites for cheaper fiber. A bootstrap option.
"However, the copper could be replaced by wireless networks instead of fiber in areas where fiber rollouts aren't cost-effective. AT&T is deploying a 10Mbps fixed wireless service in order to meet its Connect America Fund obligations."
Now, this is a decent idea. NEPA, a small ISP with wireless, was already here showing it can work:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13688595