elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | Limited Access? The story portrays a woman who chooses to live in the middle of nowhere on 300 acres, but whines that the myriad of options available to her "doesn't fit her lifestyle".
The reporter highlights her "need" for "better" broadband: she organizes Girl Scout events, a Lacrosse team, and watches Netflix.
Where's my violin when I need it?
There is no "struggle" for access, only a lack of interest in paying for it. |
|
| They run the copper to her, so why not fiber? Maybe she should have to sell some acres to pay the connection fee, but that's probably not even possible. |
|
openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | said by Wilsdom:They run the copper to her, so why not fiber? Because the copper has likely been there for decades and is now a sunk cost. Fiber costs money to deploy. CAPEX needs to earn a satisfactory return otherwise it simply doesn't make financial sense. Like it or not, wireless is the solution for these rural, more expensive locations to connect. |
|
| I guess the copper was free to run decades ago? I imagine she has power too if she's able to use the Internet. Funny how they used to be able to wire things and suddenly can't. |
|
|
|
 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5
1 edit | said by nothing00:I guess the copper was free to run decades ago? I imagine she has power too if she's able to use the Internet. Funny how they used to be able to wire things and suddenly can't.
There is a reason for that. The electric & telcos were all controlled by gov't rate setting bureaus and the costs were spread over all users over very long periods of time. And the costs were high so that those expensive to serve we're subsidized by those cheap to serve. And electric and telco PROFITS were guaranteed. If we did the same thing today an Internet connection would cost $200/mo just so that people with lots of money could live out in the sticks and have everyone else subsidize them.
--
I will be perfectly happy if the budget cuts specified in the Budget Control Act go into effect. 3 cheers for the sequester. Take the money from the drunken federal spenders. |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by Linklist:said by nothing00:I guess the copper was free to run decades ago? I imagine she has power too if she's able to use the Internet. Funny how they used to be able to wire things and suddenly can't.
There is a reason for that. The electric & telcos were all controlled by gov't rate setting bureaus and the costs were spread over all users over very long periods of time. And the costs were high so that those expensive to serve we're subsidized by those cheap to serve. And electric and telco PROFITS were guaranteed. If we did the same thing today an Internet connection would cost $200/mo just so that people with lots of money could live out in the sticks and have everyone else subsidize them. wrong. no reason why we can't do for broadband what we did for electricity. If every person in the boonies took the advice of the "move to where the internet is" people how much would your taxes go up to deal with the increase in population? Because you need more police, more fire fighters, larger schools, more teachers. More road maintenance. Not to mention the increase in traffic and the housing issues it would cause. Frankly I'd rather pay a little extra to keep them out in the boonies. |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | reply to Wilsdom
Ah, the clever writing of the Post and their subject. She lives "in the middle of 300 acres", "on a farm", but she does not own it, just a tiny corner of it.
Its a minimum of 5 road-miles from the central office, and there isn't a lot on that road. Her "spread" alone, represents a density of ~2 houses per square mile.
Running fiber to her would be extremely costly. Ain't gonna happen.
DSL could be made to work reasonably well at that distance, theoretically, with a mid-span repeater - but it would quite costly too, and require Verizon to assent. They've already done the math.
Wireless is really the only practical answer. |
|
openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | reply to BF69
Of course we can, but there's not enough appetite to shift the cost burden as you suggest. We are already taxing our society plenty. Something has got to give somewhere/sometime. |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | reply to BF69
said by BF69:wrong. no reason why we can't do for broadband what we did for electricity. If every person in the boonies took the advice of the "move to where the internet is" people how much would your taxes go up to deal with the increase in population? Because you need more police, more fire fighters, larger schools, more teachers. More road maintenance. Not to mention the increase in traffic and the housing issues it would cause. Frankly I'd rather pay a little extra to keep them out in the boonies.
You are welcome to pay "a little extra".
Those of us who have been, already, paying a lot extra, and are being "asked" to pay more, we'd like to decide for ourselves.
An increase in urban population does not mean an increase in taxes. |
|
 linicxCaveat EmptorPremium
join:2002-12-03
United State
 ·CenturyLink
| I do too. My neighbors are not four legged. Mine are very tall, or very short , and it's all very green. The average farm is 1000 acres. They may have copper lines to the house, but, where I live telco is trying to change it to digital with a stingy uplink that does not even remotely support a phone that works as well as, or even better than, a cellphone. A POTS it is not. It is a fake, and a poor one at that.
Now, to provide DSL, telco has to add a D-A converter to even deliver it over copper to the house. Farms one or more miles apart in the middle of acres of corn and cows is very common.
Telco and cable wants rural America to dry up and blow away. They are NOT going to deal with it until CONGRESS does something besides NOTHING.
In the meantime. FCC can't do a thing expect whine to congress while telco brags it delivers 100T to Paris and London. If it can do this why in the hell can't it deliver to rural America? It can. But, it's a stubborn brat that defies the parent to FORCE them to lift one finger. The problem is Congress had deep pockets that Telco and Cable are willing to fill.
The answer is it the same in MD as it is is IL, IA, IN, MI, WI, OH,
TX, NM, LA, GA, AZ, OK, MO, KS and every other state that has any rural customers.
It is NOT one farmer on one farm, it is a NATIONAL ISSUE.
--
Mac: No windows, No Gates, Apple inside |
|
