5 ms·

Also keep in mind this is in a country with around 5 million people and an area of around 330K sq miles. By contrast, Texas has 25 million people in roughly the

Also keep in mind this is in a country with around 5 million people and an area of around 330K sq miles. By contrast, Texas has 25 million people in roughly the same sq mile area. Making such promises shouldn't be hard considering the size of the population and the area you're dealing with in terms of having to lay fibre.

hartror 14y ago
Surely in your example it is actually more economical for Texas than for Finland as the greater concentration of people makes it easier to deliver the service? Sure it would cost more but on a per head basis it should be cheaper . . .
- waterlesscloud 14y ago
  It costs as much to lay the fiber to one person as it does to 2000 in the same place, so a greater area is a disadvantage.
  - jarospisak 14y ago
    He said "on a per-head basis". On a per-head basis it's 5 times cheaper for Texas to lay fiber than for Finland (greatly simplifying, of course).
    - waterlesscloud 14y ago
      No. If you bunch everyone up, it's cheaper per head. But if you spread everyone out, it's more expensive per head, because on average you're laying more fiber per person.
      - sirclueless 14y ago
        I think you misread. Texas is 5 times more dense than Finland, and hence should be cheaper per head to lay fiber.
        waterlesscloud 14y ago
        But it's not. Finland has vast, vast areas with no one. Texas has people thinly spread throughout. You can cover only parts of Finland, because people only live in parts of Finland. You have to cover pretty much all of Texas. So, once again, the size of Texas is a negative factor. The so-called "average density" is not the key factor here, the amount of fiber you have to lay to reach everyone is.
        zzuser 14y ago
        The above is an invalid comparison. A better, more objective measure is linear population density. Miles of roads in Texas: 152,054 miles Miles of roads in Finland: 65,617 miles () Population of Texas: 25,674,681 Population of Finland: 5,375,276 Linear population density of Texas: ~169 persons per miles of road Linear population density of Finland: ~82 persons per miles of road Ergo, it is cheaper per head to provide wireline telecommunications services in Texas than in Finland, when building out to the whole population, as the linear population density is higher in Texas and most, if not all, permanent residences and business are accessible by road. Sources: http://www.aaroads.com/texas/ http://www.aaroads.com/texas/ http://www.stat.fi/tup/suomi90/lokakuu_en.html http://www.stat.fi/tup/suomi90/lokakuu_en.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Finland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Finland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas () This road mileage does not include private roads in Finland. Including these roads would further lower the linear population density of Finland, but these roads were excluded from the calculation as the majority of the private roads are access roads to non-permanent recidency second homes and timer or agriculture roads.
        waterlesscloud 14y ago
        This really isn't a good measure since roads will be denser in urban areas and less dense in rural areas, thus leading to exactly the same issues as directly using population density. But beside that, the public road mileage for Texas is off by a factor of two. This DOT document lists 303,176 miles of public road in Texas. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs04/htm/hm10.htm http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs04/htm/hm10.htm
    - eurohacker 14y ago
      you seem to forget that Finland has much higher average income than Texas , average finn is probably about 2 times richer than an average texan
Tuna-Fish 14y ago
A very important point is that while Finland has an area of 330K km^2, almost all of the population is concentrated on the coasts and a few in-land cities. You can probably get 95% penetration with less than 30K km^2 coverage. The rest will likely be served with wireless broadband.

hartror 14y ago

Surely in your example it is actually more economical for Texas than for Finland as the greater concentration of people makes it easier to deliver the service? Sure it would cost more but on a per head basis it should be cheaper . . .

waterlesscloud 14y ago
It costs as much to lay the fiber to one person as it does to 2000 in the same place, so a greater area is a disadvantage.
- jarospisak 14y ago
  He said "on a per-head basis". On a per-head basis it's 5 times cheaper for Texas to lay fiber than for Finland (greatly simplifying, of course).
  - waterlesscloud 14y ago
    No. If you bunch everyone up, it's cheaper per head. But if you spread everyone out, it's more expensive per head, because on average you're laying more fiber per person.
    - sirclueless 14y ago
      I think you misread. Texas is 5 times more dense than Finland, and hence should be cheaper per head to lay fiber.
      - waterlesscloud 14y ago
        But it's not. Finland has vast, vast areas with no one. Texas has people thinly spread throughout. You can cover only parts of Finland, because people only live in parts of Finland. You have to cover pretty much all of Texas. So, once again, the size of Texas is a negative factor. The so-called "average density" is not the key factor here, the amount of fiber you have to lay to reach everyone is.
        zzuser 14y ago
        The above is an invalid comparison. A better, more objective measure is linear population density. Miles of roads in Texas: 152,054 miles Miles of roads in Finland: 65,617 miles () Population of Texas: 25,674,681 Population of Finland: 5,375,276 Linear population density of Texas: ~169 persons per miles of road Linear population density of Finland: ~82 persons per miles of road Ergo, it is cheaper per head to provide wireline telecommunications services in Texas than in Finland, when building out to the whole population, as the linear population density is higher in Texas and most, if not all, permanent residences and business are accessible by road. Sources: http://www.aaroads.com/texas/ http://www.aaroads.com/texas/ http://www.stat.fi/tup/suomi90/lokakuu_en.html http://www.stat.fi/tup/suomi90/lokakuu_en.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Finland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Finland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas () This road mileage does not include private roads in Finland. Including these roads would further lower the linear population density of Finland, but these roads were excluded from the calculation as the majority of the private roads are access roads to non-permanent recidency second homes and timer or agriculture roads.
        waterlesscloud 14y ago
        This really isn't a good measure since roads will be denser in urban areas and less dense in rural areas, thus leading to exactly the same issues as directly using population density. But beside that, the public road mileage for Texas is off by a factor of two. This DOT document lists 303,176 miles of public road in Texas. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs04/htm/hm10.htm http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs04/htm/hm10.htm
  - eurohacker 14y ago
    you seem to forget that Finland has much higher average income than Texas , average finn is probably about 2 times richer than an average texan

Tuna-Fish 14y ago

A very important point is that while Finland has an area of 330K km^2, almost all of the population is concentrated on the coasts and a few in-land cities. You can probably get 95% penetration with less than 30K km^2 coverage. The rest will likely be served with wireless broadband.