jap
Premium
join:2003-08-10
038xx
 ·RoadRunner Cable
2 edits | reply to nasadude
Nasadude,
Agreed. For rural environs lack of infrastructure remains a challenge but for most people it's a lack of standards, planning, mixed with the ravages of open competition that hinder happy net usage. With wireless coming along nicely the development of another carrier technology with obvious issues isn't what the industry needs. I'd like to see more Muni connectivity coupled to competing ISP services myself. Competition brings some good, but it's not all good: too many competing, overlapping transports just means they all get done poorly.
My location is a classic example: village of 7000, 80 miles to nearest small city (Portland, ME (50,000) and 3 existing BB options to the door: cable, dsl, wireless - all done poorly and at high cost. DSL, in fairness, done technically well (verizon) but only if you buy hardline voice service which puts the monthly >80$ for 768/384. I'd be much better off if my town had followed he examples of Tacoma-WA, Ashland-OR & others and brought fiber to my door (nowhere in sight) thus providing a far superior carriage medium, permanently de-coupling it from the endless service bundling of the private sector, and keeping the price low & flat. |
