said by verolom :

You do not deserve a response, but here is one Broadband is as essential today as roads and postal service. I think the people of these two towns should quit paying taxes and use the money to build their own network. Have a Broadband tea party, 21st century version

said by verolom :

That is a crappy option anyway you look at it. Why don't you get a satellite and pay $80 to browse the web on a sunny day with 2 second latency at some miserable 350 Kbps while the squirrels haven't modified the transceiver or chewed up the cable of your dish yet?

said by verolom :

I don't know where the lawyers and professors came from in your argument, many people living in the sticks do so because they cannot afford to live on 5th avenue in Manhattan.

Goldman, the consultant
Sanford Lewis, a lawyer and filmmaker
Dede Wilson, a contributing editor at Bon Appetit magazine
''I teach computer science at UMass; I'm the only one in the department with dial-up," said Andrew Barto
--
My Web Page
Join Red Room Forum

said by MMH :

From the Boston Globe story linked in BBR's news item:

said by sporkme :

Oh, I see. Those people are all LIBERALS!! How dare they even question the infinite wisdom of Verizon and/or Comcast. Let's just deport all those pesky whiners, they contribute nothing.

said by PDXPLT :

it was their choice to live there, but it is U.S. national policy (as enacted in the 1996 Telecomm Act) that broadband be made available to every American, no matter where they live.

Satellite does not count as broadband; the upstream is too slow, and the latency large enough to preclude the rich, interactive services envisoned by the Act.

They just want Verizon to provide the service; they don't necessarily want it at the same low price that Verizon needs to charge in areas where they face Cable competition. I bet if Verizon offered DSL for $100 a month in these towns, they'd have takers.

The really awful thing here is ths Verizon probably could offer DSL profitably in these areas, but their bean counters have decided it is more profitable to sell second dial-up lines, ISDN, and a few T1's instead. In just about any other country, they'd have a public-service obligation to provide service where it was feasible, but the current party in power in D.C. hates consumers, and loves monopolies, and shareholders, so Verizon is free to do whatever they want, even in locations where they have monopoly power.

said by PDXPLT :

it was their choice to live there, but it is U.S. national policy (as enacted in the 1996 Telecomm Act) that broadband be made available to every American, no matter where they live.

Satellite does not count as broadband; the upstream is too slow, and the latency large enough to preclude the rich, interactive services envisoned by the Act.

said by Minister :

quote:

---

Boo hoo. Satellite is available.. let them eat satellite.

---

Yet another person who doesn't want to solve the problem and would rather point and laugh at rural America.

said by sporkme :

Oh, I see. Those people are all LIBERALS!! How dare they even question the infinite wisdom of Verizon and/or Comcast. Let's just deport all those pesky whiners, they contribute nothing.

said by Jason Levine :

If the taxpayers of that town were to decide to take their own locally paid taxes and build a Muni Broadband network, it would be their prerogative. Unfortunately, they would be opposed by Verizon and Comcast. Not because Verizon or Comcast actually want to serve the area, but because Verizon and Comcast don't want any potential competition in the area should they one day decide to service the area. So the taxpayers are left without acceptable Broadband service at Verizon's and Comcast's whim.

A broadband committee, formed by Leverett and Shutesbury officials more than two years ago has investigated home-grown alternatives such as a locally funded fiber network. The $5 million fiber network plan for the towns, with a combined population of about 3,500, is on the back burner.

said by Minister :

Face it. It's not the cost you oppose, it's the idea of local government competing with industry. They could present a dirt cheap genius plan that never touched taxpayer dollars and you'd oppose it based on political leanings.

said by Orwell1984 :

it was the towns own study which showed muni to not be cost effective in this instance.On the other hand maybe they should look into options other than fiber.

said by Orwell1984 :

Hard for me to believe I am agreeing with Retire_Rich but it was the towns own study which showed muni to not be cost effective in this instance.On the other hand maybe they should look into options other than fiber.

said by Minister :

Wireless, Wimax, etc. There are other options.

said by MMH :

They CAN get broadband(satellite). They just don't like that option. Too bad.

said by MMH :

Let's face it. They live in an area where it isn't cost effective to provide DSL & cable service. They can get satellite, but they whine it isn't perfect.

said by SkyDude :

Telcos have been using that model for years. In rural areas, where homes might be miles apart, where's the profit in running dozens of miles of copper, but only have a few dozen users. Us "city folk" have been subsidizing rural phone service, why does internet access not fit that business model too? Greed maybe?

said by Rhobite :

This is where I live. They don't want the taxpayers to pick up the tab, and they aren't "upscale yuppies". They just want to let Verizon and Comcast know that there is a market here. If you're going to make wild accusations and assumptions, you're better off not posting at all.

said by wanthighspeed :

Sigh..
This comes down to the issue of do the telco's have a responsibility to provide high speed internet service to EVERY area they are the incumbent.

The answer, of course, is yes. Why you ask? Because THEY WERE SUBSIDIZED to build the network in the first place. That's right, the government guaranteed them profits in exchange for universal service. Boo hooo, now they want to claim it's not cost effective. Too damn bad. You signed a pact with the devil (government) 50 years ago to get your monopoly, and your guaranteed profits, and your eminient domain rights. Guess what beatches, it's time to pay the piper. Don't like it? Too damn bad. Taxpayers paid for you to build the network in the first place, taxpayers paid to ensure you had no competition in the first place, so now it's your turn to pay up and provide services EQUALLY to everyone.

If you were to go back and take away the government subsidies 50 years ago, then only the big cities would ever have been wired. BUT, there wouldn't have been monopolies, and there may have not been standards. Good thing?, probably not. But it's a moot point, since the phone company WAS subsidized by the taxpayer, so now it's the taxpayers turn to rape the company. I for one, stongly support raping the companies that have raped us for so many years.

Tax payers paid for the building of the phone network and as far as that goes it has very few places where you can not get a phone line. Internet is not a pots product. But pots is merely a carrier for internet.

said by FTCXtreme :

WISPs... You guys say you doing all this good for rural areas nows your chance go to Leverrette and Shutesbury and deploy. While your at it come to New Braintree,MA Thats New Braintree, MA 01531.

said by BigMac777 :

Some people are not retired government employees that have been subsidized by the tax payers all their lives. So therefore they may not have a government retirement check for the TAX PAYERS to pay there retirement and make there payments for Satelitte service for them. The big companies are to cheap to help out the little guy. They do need to be held accountable and service everyone. Not just the chosen few in the highly populated ares.