 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to PhoenixDown
Re: does anyone bother to check anything said by PhoenixDown:You were saying that you the availability noted on connected nations site was fairly accurate, I wanted to check a few places myself. well I can only speak for ConenctedTn and only for my area. Well ConenctedTn has pretty detailed maps. So I get uplcose and then use Google maps to try to get addresses in the area in questions. I also use reverse look-up in whitepages.com to get all the addresses on a particular road and also phone numbers if they have them. And if I happen to be in an area I'm interested in make mental notes of addresses. I then go to the 2 ISPs in my area at&t and Charter and check to see if those addresses and phone numbers are in areas that have service.
Charter is a bit easier since you can check by both address and phone number. I also have a 3rd check by looking up channel listing for Charter by address. If you can't get Charter services at an address you won't get a channel list. Also if I enter an address/phone number that actually has service it will say there is already service at that address. You can't get any better conformation than that.
I feel I should be getting some of that $300 mil |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to iansltx
Re: 95% can be real if... it determines what 95% coverage is. said by iansltx:Easy solution: WiMAX. Before you tune me out, it'll cover long distances with the right antennas, and it'll fill all those peksy coverage holes. If a WiMAX tower gets overloaded due to lots of subscribers, you've found a place that might be economical to wire. Simple as that  I'm not against WiMax it's just like BPL all I heard for year is how it's the next big thing then nothing ever happens. I remember reading in 2000 how by 2010 BPL was going to be a major player in broadband and how you were going to be able to get super cheap and fast interent from your electric company even if you lived in the boonies |
|
|
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| reply to Linklist
Re: Objective, non-industry supported mapping organizations industry data would be excellent if:
a) it was transparent and could be verified by anyone
b) they didn't insist nobody else could do anything with it without their permission
the problem right now is they claim "it's proprietary, so we can't let you see the raw data" and they insist on complete control of the use, even if govt $$ paid for "collecting" it. |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | reply to iansltx
Re: 95% can be real if... it determines what 95% coverage is. said by iansltx:Easy solution: WiMAX. It's a solution but it's not necessarily easy. There seems to be the mistaken belief that WiMAX was developed for rural areas. It was originally developed (just like LTE) for metro areas. It has been found that it (Revision E) works reasonably well in some rural areas but those towers, equipment and radio spectrum are not inexpensive. Once those towers are both in place and paid for it becomes a relatively inexpensive "last mile" solution. |
|
| reply to BF69
Or you could put up another radio. This would create a self-healing mesh, with overlapping coverage. No overload..
It would just roll over to the next available, less busy radio. They have built a system like this in Palm Desert, California. Works VERY well.! |
|
 screavic4Premium
join:2006-08-11
Paron, AR
kudos:1 | Either Way... Either way it goes, mapping I understand is a start to an understanding of where HSI is NOT. I am just disappointed that the majority of this countries attitude towards high speed internet is that it is a luxury. I understand that it isn't a requirement for residential but they also have to understand that dial up is horrible in these rural areas where you are lucky to obtain a 28.8 kbps connection.
Am I happy with what I got (Alltel Axess), I'm happy I got something better than dialup but where I live this is far from true broadband. Considering my latency, upload times, and the lack to hardly do anything at all with really low caps (5GB) probably pretty soon considering the merger.
I made a choice to live in the country and I understand that there are certain sacrifices that people make to live away from the city. So don't say "Move and everything will be fine" but living on a fixed income of disability and my wife's income it's hard to "consider" the costs of living in the city considering we would have already lost our house if we did live in the city.
I dunno, just disappointed that we have taken this long to recognize how far behind we are in technology. Considering some of Japan already has 1Gbps broadband and other countries are getting large deployments of Wireless broadband considering they don't have alot of the red tape that we do. (I know it's there to protect us, but some get's out of hand thanks to lobbyist).
Start bashing... NOW |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | reply to Anon 51
Re: 95% can be real if... it determines what 95% coverage is. What tehcnology are they using? How big of an area are they covering? Most rural wireless has to have antennas pointed at subscribers and vice versa, to the nondirectional nature of a mesh doesnt make as much sense. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| reply to BF69
Re: 95% can be real if... it determines what 95% coverage is. Key difference: BPL causes lots of interference. WiMAX has its own spectrum.
Also, BPL *does* work, provided you can get cheap bandwidh to the substation etc. Which probably isn't doable out in the sticks anyway. Though if you look through the DSLR forums you'll see a few successful BPL customers through DirecTV...or was it Dish...speeds were 1.5 Mbps both ways.
Though WiMAX can deliver more, comparable to a DOCSIS 1.1 cable system. Doesn't sound like much to in-town people but great for out-of-towners. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| reply to Sammer
WiMAX is not as inexpensive as, say, Motorola Canopy on the tower end ($12k for a second order diversity system plus antennas versus several thousand for Canopy versus less for other systems). However the subscriber units aren't all that bad; $350 or so for something that, with an antenna, can do well in rural areas, if you know where to look. |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
1 edit | Data Already Exists These data already exist. They come straight from the Internet Providers themselves.
»Wrong
Instead of wasting $300 million in trying to figure out what the ISPs already know, perhaps those who do want this map can hire some people to type in every address in the USA into these websites and construct their own map on their own dime instead.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon FiOS
·MSN
1 edit | Connected RIPOFF! Before the Government spends a penny of taxpayer money on finding out where broadband is and isn't, they should ask themselves Why the USA has the slowest broadband at the most expensive prices of all the first world countries.
The answer (as most of us know) is simple: GREED!
In the USA, we have fewer choices then in any other major country. Yes, we have more broadband users then others, but that's simply because we have more people then others.
It seems to me that by changing a few regulations, especially by changing the Bush Administration's interpretation of the 1996 Communications Act where it relates to 'last mile' sharing of the telco and cable infrastructure (which I remind you the telcos and cablecos both AGREED TO SHARE and GET PAID FOR SHARING) that the number of broadband options in many areas could double overnight, After all, we all know that competition LOWERS PRICES and INCREASES quality, while monopolies do the opposite!
It's about time that everyone agree the Internet isn't a frill any more. It's an absolute NECESSITY for most Americans-and as such should be regulated as a public utility. |
|
 RobIn Deo speramus.Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:3 | said by qworster:Before the Government spends a penny of taxpayer money on finding out where broadband is and isn't, they should ask themselves Why the USA has the slowest broadband at the most expensive prices of all the first world countries. The answer (as most of us know) is simple: GREED!In the USA, we have fewer choices then in any other major country. Yes, we have more broadband users then others, but that's simply because we have more people then others. It seems to me that by changing a few regulations, especially by changing the Bush Administration's interpretation of the 1996 Communications Act where it relates to 'last mile' sharing of the telco and cable infrastructure (which I remind you the telcos and cablecos both AGREED TO SHARE and GET PAID FOR SHARING) that the number of broadband options in many areas could double overnight, After all, we all know that competition LOWERS PRICES and INCREASES quality, while monopolies do the opposite! It's about time that everyone agree the Internet isn't a frill any more. It's an absolute NECESSITY for most Americans-and as such should be regulated as a public utility. Canada's Broadband is behind ours.
--
CheckSite.us | YourIP.us | Reverseip.us |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | reply to iansltx
Re: 95% can be real if... it determines what 95% coverage is. It was directv.
What kinda speeds can 1.1 do? |
|
Reviews:
 ·ooma
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
| what a rip(off) First of all Verizon shouldn't get a rusty red or black cent IF they are allowed to jettison the supposed BAD Return on Investment geographies. That's the whole point.. they keep the good areas, but get no money. No matter how big their lobbying budget goes.. they get NOTHING from the government.
As for AT&T, well.. first of all... I'd break AT&T's freshly minted merger with Bell South into a million little pieces. Then give most of the money to Bell South, under NEW MANAGEMENT to 1-up the sloppy U-Verse product AT&T is delivering.. one ADSL2+ remote terminal at a time. We can't forget about qwest.. we need to spare a few million for wiring communites adjacent to current fiber deployments in their footprint. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| reply to me1212
Re: 95% can be real if... it determines what 95% coverage is. 38 Mbps down, 10 up, per node. Though WiMAX, at its top modulation on 10MHz channels (doable but not in all circumstances) is 35 and 4 if memory serves. 5MHz channels, which may be more common, are half that of course but as you can see with ClearWire 6 Mbps down and 1 Mbps up is very doable. |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | Cool. A 6/1 wireless would be better IMHO than a 5/less than 1 DSL. |
|
