For the last years, due to probably professional perversion, I have questioned most of (if not all) the assumptions of broadband/NGA/FTTH techno-economic studies.
One thing that never felt entirely right is how we factor population density in cost functions. We use inhabitants per sq. mile/km (area metric) to estimate costs while we express the results (networks built) in homes passed (linear, length metric). This is a discrepancy which I think (until now at least) in most cases tends to at certain extent disproportionally augment estimated costs for less populated, rural areas in comparison to urban centers.
This is because the road length is not linearly related to the area of coverage although the actual construction cost relates directly to the street’s length you have to dig in rather the area you plan to cover.
I wonder if anyone had an opinion (different or same view) about it.
No related posts.
