said by jchambers28 :

why don't offer an unlimited services

said by openbox9 :

if you think that our "first world country" has such "third world broadband choices", then I invite you to look around at other countries, weigh your benefits and costs of living, and then let us know which country is so much better. Serious question as I've been a lot of places and I'd like to read your frame of reference.

said by major marco :

It wasn't directed at me, but I'll answer the question anyway - Since the U.S. is the only country on the planet that lets people in -or for that matter accepts any and all human debris that washes up on its shores or crawls under a fence- regardless of age, education, income and/or ability to earn one, I am not able to seriously discuss with you my choice of which country I would dump the U.S. for. Just know that if it were an option, I would without a second thought.

said by major marco :

I am not able to seriously discuss with you my choice of which country I would dump the U.S. for. Just know that if it were an option, I would without a second thought.

said by openbox9 :

Do you have any idea how much it costs, and how much time is required, to design, engineer, manufacture, test, tweak design, re-manufacture, retest, build multiple systems, launch, and manage a satellite? Then throw in multiple ground-stations and O&M for future years.

said by openbox9 :

I know your post was more directed at slamming the US because you feel that we are so bad off, so I guess this was more of a rhetorical question. Anyway, if you think that our "first world country" has such "third world broadband choices", then I invite you to look around at other countries, weigh your benefits and costs of living, and then let us know which country is so much better. Serious question as I've been a lot of places and I'd like to read your frame of reference.

said by SilverSurfer :

Isn't that exactly what we pay for in the form of taxes on broadband? So that folks in rural areas can have access? What is happening with the monies providers are collecting at the behest of the feds to subsidize rural areas with broadband?

said by SilverSurfer :

I have "looked around" and weighed options accordingly and I stand by my original statement. The U.S. is a first world country with 3rd world broadband choices. We pay the highest prices in the world for the lowest k/bps. Where I choose to live vs not is not germane to this discussion.

said by SilverSurfer :

That consumers even have to go with a sat provider is bad enough, but adding insult to injury that they can't access broadband in any other matter and are then subject to ridiculously low caps. This is just another glaring reminder that the U.S. is a first world country with third world broadband choices. The only positive I see in this matter is at least HughesNet isn't pretending there aren't any caps in place like certain other providers have and then pleading stupidity when they get caught by their own subscriber base (cough Comcrap cough.)

said by Tzale :

Chances are if you are in the middle of no where, you probably lead a much more simpler life that doesn't rely on broadband like us city slickers and suburbanites need.-Tzale

said by Tzale :

Chances are if you are in the middle of no where, you probably lead a much more simpler life that doesn't rely on broadband like us city slickers and suburbanites need.

said by SilverSurfer :

I'm going to stop you right there and disqualify that particular $0.02 because you know not from whence you speak. Just because a person lives in the country does not necessarily mean that person is a country bumpkin/hillbilly.

I am originally from a rural area back east and one of the secondary reasons I left was predominantly because of lack of broadband. Are you going to try to tell me with a straight face that you know that I lead a much more "simpler" life and therefore, did not need broadband?