how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 fuziwuziNot born yesterdayPremium
join:2005-07-01
Atlanta, GA | reply to BF69
Re: Simple Solution My parents (in rural south-central Virginia) have only two options: satellite or incredibly slow DSL (1Mbps down/128kbps up). The DSL is wildly unreliable, with downtime of nearly 50%. Satellite is simply ludicrous with the price and caps. The DSL is a recent addition, only in the last year. Before it, the only option was dial-up and because of the type of phone system, that was limited to a maximum of 24kbps connection. Needless to say, not many people in that area even bother having internet service. There is no WISP, no Verizon, no cable (not even cable TV available).
--
Teabaggers: Destroying America is Priority #1 | | |
|
pandoraPremium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·Google Voice
 ·Comcast
·ooma
·Future Nine Corp..
| said by fuziwuzi:My parents (in rural south-central Virginia) have only two options: satellite or incredibly slow DSL (1Mbps down/128kbps up). The DSL is wildly unreliable, with downtime of nearly 50%. Satellite is simply ludicrous with the price and caps. The DSL is a recent addition, only in the last year. Before it, the only option was dial-up and because of the type of phone system, that was limited to a maximum of 24kbps connection. Needless to say, not many people in that area even bother having internet service. There is no WISP, no Verizon, no cable (not even cable TV available).
What percent of people are in areas not covered by wired broadband? What is the cost of providing wired broadband to these areas? What is the minimum speed and acceptable uptime for rural broadband, and if it is expensive to provide, who should pay for it?
--
"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand." - Milton Friedman" | |
fuziwuziNot born yesterdayPremium
join:2005-07-01
Atlanta, GA | said by pandora:said by fuziwuzi:My parents (in rural south-central Virginia) have only two options: satellite or incredibly slow DSL (1Mbps down/128kbps up). The DSL is wildly unreliable, with downtime of nearly 50%. Satellite is simply ludicrous with the price and caps. The DSL is a recent addition, only in the last year. Before it, the only option was dial-up and because of the type of phone system, that was limited to a maximum of 24kbps connection. Needless to say, not many people in that area even bother having internet service. There is no WISP, no Verizon, no cable (not even cable TV available).
What percent of people are in areas not covered by wired broadband? What is the cost of providing wired broadband to these areas? What is the minimum speed and acceptable uptime for rural broadband, and if it is expensive to provide, who should pay for it? Internet has become a necessary utility, just like electricity. So, just like the government stepped in to "electrify" the nation, including rural areas, so should providing adequate internet service be mandated. Unless you'd like to see the US sink even lower and become a Second- or Third-World country. Your "I've got mine, screw you" attitude is destroying this country little by little.
--
Teabaggers: Destroying America is Priority #1 | |
pandoraPremium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Google Voice
·Comcast
·ooma
·Future Nine Corp..
| said by fuziwuzi:Internet has become a necessary utility, just like electricity. So, just like the government stepped in to "electrify" the nation, including rural areas, so should providing adequate internet service be mandated. Unless you'd like to see the US sink even lower and become a Second- or Third-World country. Your "I've got mine, screw you" attitude is destroying this country little by little.
I don't know if we have 100% electrification to all rural communities even today. Once in Nebraska I passed a sign when entering the highway ... "Next service station 157 miles".
That's 157 miles to the next gas station. Should the government guarantee a gas station within 10 miles of everyone? How about a McDonalds? Apple store? Starbucks? Mall?
If I chose to live in an area 75 or more miles from the nearest service station, my expectation would be Internet, electricity and phone service could be a problem (along with a slew of other issues).
At some point, we can't provide everyone with everything.
As to slipping, the way not to slip is to remove the duopoly enjoyed by phone and cable companies across the U.S. If we allowed 5 or 10 companies to compete for access to poles and conduit, without requirements to cover undeserved areas, we'd see many getting much faster Internet at much lower prices.
For non-rural areas, we lack competition, for rural areas, there are co-ops for electricity, phone and Internet. How much the federal government should pay to provide services to people who choose to live far from any town or city I don't know.
But if someone wants to be remote, the are consequences.
Currently a large portion of our phone bill is government taxes and regulatory fees. Maybe it's time for the government to stop charging for 911, for all taxes and fees attached to all phone service. Every zip code should have a direct dial 911 number, a 10 digit number that can be called to reach 911 services. This would permit google and other companies to offer free services but also allow users access to 911.
With google, you get a free phone number and unlimited calls. An obitalk device is about $40. If you have broadband, most of your phone problems are solved. 911 can be covered by local property or state taxes, just as police, fire, and emergency services are currently taken care of.
Less taxes on phone service, on Internet, and less of a monopoly would reduce costs for most and spur competition.
We impose a ton of regulation on utilities (some good, but a lot not) and a ton of taxes and fees (most if not all bad). We also permit companies to purchase wireless spectrum and squat on it forever.
If spectrum isn't used in a reasonable period, it should be returned to the government. Many large companies are holding bandwidth to limit competition. This is another failure of appropriate government regulation.
--
"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand." - Milton Friedman" | |
| "How much the federal government should pay to provide services to people who choose to live far from any town or city I don't know.
But if someone wants to be remote, the are consequences."
These statements reveal a disturbing lack of understanding. Rural and remote are not synonymous. I live 15 miles from the State capitol in one direction, and 10 miles from town and freeway in two more. Rural, sure. Hardly remote. No cable, no DSL, and the copper line legacy system is incapable of carrying even decent POTS.
There are a few people that choose to live in remote areas. But that's not the problem. I live on the edge of a single cell tower coverage area. The past 7 years has seen this tower become congested. The unlimited 3G plan I bought then is now worthless because of Verizon's thuggish behavior in implementing their 'Network Optimization Plan'. They have the money to provide more towers and thus access. Instead they choose to screw the highest bandwidth users. Who is that? Those who have no other option.
I fired them after a long contentious, frustrating relationship. It was clear it'd only get worse. I bit the bullet and now pay 30 bucks a month more for SAT service with a cap. It too is substandard, but in ways I can live with.
Ya, I moved to 'the country' where we wanted to raise our boys. But its not Timbuktu. My state is in the top 10 ranked by population. And ya, it has consequences. Much of it brought about by attitudes such as displayed in the quotes above. | |
|
