They do it somewhat with LTE, which they have to roll out first in rural areas before being allowed to go into the big cities (where the money is). But in the DSL-market, where there is no such force applied, they simply don't do it. Promises are worth nothing and the market doesn't succeed in providing basic infrastructure.
Just because the big Telcos don't consider it economically viable to invest there, these 1000 people would have to share the badndwidth of LTE among themselves indefinitely. So of course they became active. (Note, some communities already started to get involved in their own internet connectivity long before LTE was rolled out in Germany.)
Funny enough, once there is a decent alternative by a local/small provider, the big ones also start showing up.
We've been working on this for two years where I live and the digging will finally begin in august, 180km of fiber to ~600 homes.
I am really not sure how I feel about their situation. They have plenty of money to throw at the problem, so they could fix it if they really wanted to, but that isn't the case for everyone. For now it is just horrible when they want to show me a youtube video and then we all huddle around the laptop for a few minutes while it buffers.
I am very interested in similar projects, like B4RN in the UK- I am working to form a similar community initiative in Dade County, MO, USA. (DadeCountyFiber.org). My current plan is to operate the ISP locally as a nonprofit, rather than leasing it to the ISP as in the article (More like the B4RN project).
As for the peerings of TNG: http://www.cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/as-report?as=AS13101
Good spots to scout for: railroad stations, microwave towers, datacenters (unlikely, but still), highways.
You could try pinging @malcolmcorbett as he has been involved in community broadband
I wonder whether it would be better to instead invest in 4G services in rural areas. Here I can't even get 2G (yeah this place is a bit remote), but most rural areas have that or 3G in the UK.
I live in a very rural area and over the past 3-4 years our internet has gone from poor (0.5MBps) to nothing. We were told by an engineer that the wire is so badly damaged that there is nothing that he could do and the majority of the wire from the exchange from our house to the exchange would have to be replaced. Its so bad landline calls are no inaudible due to the amount of noise coming down the line.
What did BT have to say about this? Absolutely nothing, there is a flag on our account letting the call centers know that there is nothing they can do for us. They just keep telling us to move ISPs. But everything goes down the BT line anyway so thats just moving the problem elsewhere.
(Its quite sad that I can remember the sequence of numbers to press when ringing up to get through to the tech support and then the script they used to ask when tried to resolve our issues.)
There are about 5 other houses with us, then about 4 miles before the next town, and then the exchange. In total we are about 5-7 miles from the exchange (which is fibre ready).
The problem for us now is that everyone just expects broadband of some form or another, its like a utility. Nobody wants to buy a house with no water, or electric and now people don't want to buy a house without broadband. So we've got to the point where we are trying to move house to get access to the internet but cannot sell our current house to get the funds to move.
EDIT: Also just like to add that I've looked into 4G and due to the landscape, it wasn't an option :(
Recently we got LTE, which i hope isn't meant to be a serious alternative to proper DSL/cable as the volume limit renders it close to unusable (15 GB or 30 GB for additional costs, every GB above that will require additional 5€). Furthermore connections are dropped frequently and it feels as if the local LTE access point is already at its limit during peak hours. LTE just isn't an alternative.
Unfortunately I fear that this is all that is planned for our region as part of the so called broadband initiative.
To me this is a sign of huge progress, not only do we expect multiple mbps connections for our pocket computers, we're upset when we don't get that level of performance even in the backwaters of our societies.
The mobile tower still has to provide backhaul of some kind. In the usual scenario the backhaul will be provided by microwave connections, though in some cases it might be a fibre connection. Microwave is easier to manage since you don't have to keep leasing right-of-way for your cables, and if something goes wrong it's either one end or the other (as opposed to cables, where your problem with connectivity from, say, Canberra to Sydney might be in Canberra or Sydney or any point along that 400km cable).
Wireless is not a solution for last-mile fixed services except in very sparse rural settings. It will always be lower-speed than wired connections. The only advantage of wireless is the ability to reach more people in a given service area for the same infrastructure cost.
How much of that infrastructure cost is regulatory cost versus just the cost of people building their own antennas? Specifically I am wondering if this is another industry where equipment isn't as difficult or costly as the folklore (or marketing materials) would have you believe.
Does any part of that say "cheap" to you?
Radios are difficult. Radio transmitters which don't pollute the spectrum are more difficult. There's a reason mesh networking is a big research area at the moment - because the little bit of 2.4ghz you use around your house absolutely doesn't scale. You keep it contained and low power, and use wired backhaul.
You want to go to high power? You now need electronically aimed beam-forming antennas, much higher power levels, you need all of this linked to the national backbone anyway.
On the other hand you have more and more services like phones and TV move to IP, so a wired highspeed connection might be even more important in the future.
All 8,500 residents have access to gigabit for $57/mo.