Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 11 Apr 2007 15:46:53 +0000 DTC wrote:
>> Personally I think that's a failed model as Clearwire
>
> Spoken like a city slicker! ;-)

I can speak polysyllabic or redneck...name yer poison.

> The appeal of $50 1.5Mbps service will be in the "sticks" where the only
> viable broadband options are currently satellite ($300-600 for equipment,
> and $50-80/month for 512k-1.5m.)

Very true..IF the "sticks" are kind of close into town or a nearby remote
DSLAM...but still there a lot of "deep sticks" where rural WiFi can find a
home.

>> For these customers, wireless broadband might be an alternative. But
>> with the telcos aggressively deploying DSLAMs in pedestals along the
>> roadsides instead of only at the central office as in the past, we're
>> seeing DSL being offered out in the country side.
>
> There's country and then there's country! Rural DSL deployment isn't
> happening fast enough that Clearwire won't have a solid opportunity for a
> few years if they can deploy their service before that happens.

I haven't looked at Clearwire's license maps to see if they really have the
coverage, so I can't say if they be able to pull that off. On the other
hand, its going to be far more expensive for them than a rural WiFi
provider as they don't use outside antennas - their unit sits nest to you
PC on the desk. Looking at the coverage maps and AP locations, it looks
like each AP has only about a two mile radius compared to six or eight mile
radius for rural WiFi.

> (Look at> the third world countries that have leapfrogged past wireline
> telephony
> right in to wireless, because the per customer cost of deploying wireless
> is much cheaper.)

The Third World doesn't have the copper infrastructure like the U.S telcos,
so its certainly cheaper and faster to deploy.

> Many rural areas in the US will likely be better
> served by wireless or satellite internet for quite some time.

I'd say that's a good bet.