Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Networking The Internet

vTel Deploying Gigabit Internet In Vermont At $35/Month 146

symbolset writes "Up to 17,500 rural Vermont subscribers of vTel, a legacy copper telephone company, stand to get gigabit fiber to the home. Funded by a $95 million U.S. grant and $55 million in coinvestment from a utility for smart meters, the 1,200 mile fiber network will cost $8,500 per home — if every subscriber takes the gigabit Internet. Currently the company is doing its best to convince people this is a product they need, but have seen only 600 takers so far. The federal grant is part of $7.2 billion in broadband stimulus funds that seem to have accomplished very little."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

vTel Deploying Gigabit Internet In Vermont At $35/Month

Comments Filter:
  • Why? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by hedwards ( 940851 ) on Saturday April 27, 2013 @09:49AM (#43566843)

    Why are we funding this kind of service in rural areas when the much cheaper to wire urban areas still don't have this sort of service? What's more, urban areas always seem to get the shaft on things like this where we're paying to subsidize other people's wasteful lifestyles, even as our infrastructure is crumbling.

    Seriously, most of the tax revenue comes from the developed portions of the country, but most of the spending is done in less developed areas of the country.

  • $8500 a home? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by __aaltlg1547 ( 2541114 ) on Saturday April 27, 2013 @09:54AM (#43566867)

    Sounds like a giant waste of money to me. What else could you supply for $8500/home?

    • street repairs?
    • free water service?
    • a used car for each household?
    • a new roof for everybody?
    • Government-funded maid service?
  • by __aaltlg1547 ( 2541114 ) on Saturday April 27, 2013 @10:02AM (#43566913)

    Seriously, maybe the spending IS the problem. Let's just take this hundred million we have to borrow and spend it on a bunch of people who will never appreciate the value of what they are getting because they don't fucking need it and couldn't imagine paying for it if they had the money burning a hole in their pockets.

  • by Bonewalker ( 631203 ) on Saturday April 27, 2013 @01:24PM (#43568265)
    "The problem is that, as the market shows, most people neither need nor want gigabit or even 100meg. even 50/20 is more than most people will ever use."

    And 64kb of ram is all any computer will ever need, too.

    I'm not saying we necessarily need more now, or that we can afford it now, but let's not put arbitrary limits on future capacity based on today's experiences or make decisions that impede progreess. It doesn't hold up.

  • by LordLimecat ( 1103839 ) on Saturday April 27, 2013 @01:53PM (#43568457)

    And 64kb of ram is all any computer will ever need, too.

    I'm not saying we necessarily need more now, or that we can afford it now, but let's not put arbitrary limits on future capacity based on today's experiences or make decisions that impede progreess. It doesn't hold up.

    The best way to figure that hugely complex problem out is with market forces, not arbitrary "well, we're gonna burn $150million and hope that the demand appears".

    Past trends do not indicate that people will need or want gigabit internet for many, many, many years now.

    Try that sort of thinking out with other infrastructure; why not invest in 4 lane roads to each house, and 500 amps of current to each house, and double-capacity storm drainage. I mean, the need isnt there NOW, but in the future, who knows, right?

  • Re:Great! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Areyoukiddingme ( 1289470 ) on Saturday April 27, 2013 @01:57PM (#43568489)

    There is money for this which is good since our roads are crumbling and we won't be able to drive to work.

    Maybe in your state. In my state, the road I drive on every day got a new layer of asphalt last summer. The extension and expansion project for the highway I drive on every day was finished late last year, with brand new concrete. The bridge I use to cross a river every day is less than 5 years old. The bridge the other 1/3rd of the metro area uses to cross the same river every day is being replaced as I write this. Replaced, not repaired. One entire span was torn down last year and the brand new replacement is making rapid progress this year, despite the weather. When it's done, they'll tear down and replace the other span.

    In the past 3 1/2 years, 802 bridges in this state were repaired or replaced. The schedule called for 5 years.

    Crumbling bridges and highways are problems in mismanaged states. In states with competent road planners and honest contractors, the jobs get planned, started, and finished, on budget, under the projected schedule, and to high quality. The new bridges even have substantial earthquake resistance built in, because there's a fault near enough to be a problem. It hasn't tripped in over 100 years, but every time it does, it's massive.

    Where am I? In the heartland of America, in a state with one Republican Senator and one Democratic Senator and a Democratic governor. Red or blue, the representatives in this state know what government is FOR. The ancient Romans and ancient Chinese knew this: if there is one and only one thing government is for, it's road construction. Why other people don't get what's been known for literally thousands of years, I'm sure I don't know. Missouri knows though.

    And Missouri too is using federal grant money and state matching to build rural fiber. I bet ours gets done and works.

"Experience has proved that some people indeed know everything." -- Russell Baker

Working...