dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2013-05-23 12:57:03: According to a new report by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, gaps related to faster broadband availability continue to persist, especially in rural regions. ..

page: 1 · 2 · next

isp10002
join:2012-10-24

isp10002

Member

not suprised

i have dsl and i can only get 3 mbps, im one of those 18%

CaptainRR
Premium Member
join:2006-04-21
Blue Rock, OH

CaptainRR

Premium Member

Re: not suprised

I can only get dialup I wonder where that puts me? Oh I also get LTE, I wonded if they factored that in most of the time that runs over 6 mbps.

mrham8
Premium Member
join:2002-05-14
Seneca, MO

mrham8 to isp10002

Premium Member

to isp10002
You are lucky!!
Here in Seneca Missouri, we can only get 500k to 1MB and that's on a good day.
bdon78
I didn't do it
join:2009-05-18
Decatur, GA

1 recommendation

bdon78 to isp10002

Member

to isp10002
Uh.. and what about water? Or power? I assume those utilities aren't robust either.. that's what happens when you live in a rural area. If you want to give up the privacy and small community aspect of living in a rural area and have access to better utilities, then move...

Pros and cons for city living and rural living but you can't expect any company to build out a fiber network for 500 people (or a robust power infrastructure, sheesh)
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

silbaco

Premium Member

Re: not suprised

Actually, you can. And it is happening every day. Rural operators are deploying fiber to areas of less than 500 people. The benefits of lower maintenance, better reliability, and better service has proven worthwhile. And power companies are deploying new power infrastructure to rural areas to increase reliability and carry vast amounts of renewable energy from rural areas to urban areas.
bdon78
I didn't do it
join:2009-05-18
Decatur, GA

bdon78

Member

Re: not suprised

That is most definitely the exception not the rule. Stop to think of how much of America is truly rural and you'll understand how it would be impossible to deliver those type of services to all rural towns.
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

silbaco

Premium Member

Re: not suprised

I wouldn't say it is an exception. A lot of our rural operators are forward looking companies. They don't have wall street investors looking for a quick dollar. They don't have debt piled up from needless consolidation. They don't have over-payed executives. They have near 100% penetration, so they know their investment will not be wasted. They put everything into their local communities. There are hundreds of rural operators investing money in future technologies all over the US.

When it comes to power, we need to be honest here. Our power grid may be more reliable in most urban areas, but the whole grid is complete crap. Deteriorating and overloaded. It's not just rural areas. However, there are many rural areas that are indeed getting upgraded. Especially in states deploying high amounts of wind power.

Forsaken77
@optonline.net

Forsaken77 to bdon78

Anon

to bdon78
You people are both talking aboug opposite ends of the spectrum, rural or urban. There is also suburban areas that have all the access to modern technology AND the privacy of rural areas. So I wouldn't say if you live in a rural area to move to the city, I'd say move to suburbia. If you live in an area where your closest neighbors are 10 miles down the road, you can't expect to get high speed broadband. Aside of farmers, why would anyone voluntarily live in the middle of nowhere as their primary residence? Business's don't wanna spend a large amount of resources on a small amount of people. The ROI simply isn't there. Of course there are exceptions to the rule, but for the most part, companies are all about the bottom line.

jesup
@embarqhsd.net

jesup to bdon78

Anon

to bdon78
I'm in the same boat. I live between two towns 3 miles either direction (not exactly the boonies) and I can only get the 500kb-1mb and I have to pay my carrier's 10mb rate. I could take a backhoe and dig up a major fiber trunk that goes through my property and kill lord knows what.

Yeah, you city folk get your connections through "magic" the reality is those of us in the country with land get forced easements so you can get your high speed broadband, electricity, etc. maybe I should dig it up and tell you to "buy some land so you can have internet wires go to your city."
TheMG
Premium Member
join:2007-09-04
Canada
MikroTik RB450G
Cisco DPC3008
Cisco SPA112

1 edit

TheMG

Premium Member

"Rural communities"

What's a "rural community"? I'm assuming a small town or village?

Does this include people who live outside of small towns and villages?

Do the numbers account for services that are so heavily over-subscribed that customers never get the "up to" advertised speed? I would guess not.

For instance, satellite internet subscribers rarely every attain the "up to" advertised speed, since the service is very heavily over-subscribed and congested.

It's the same thing with LOS wireless and cellular based services. These services are also often congested and in many areas, people would be lucky to see speeds of 6Mbps or more. Sometimes even if congestion isn't the cause, spotty signal is.

Also need to consider data caps. IMHO, anything with a monthly data cap under 15GB shouldn't be considered real broadband. That rules out a lot of cellular-based data services.
patt2k
join:2009-01-16

patt2k

Member

Ml

CaptainRr look into millenicom runs on vzw lte or sprint (50 gig) data cap better then homefusion.

CaptainRR
Premium Member
join:2006-04-21
Blue Rock, OH

CaptainRR

Premium Member

Re: Ml

I will have to look into that I have had a wireless card with VZW for years. A higher cap would sure be nice! I looked into the HF a while back but decided not to go with it yet, after all I still hold a unlimited plan with the smartphone.
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

elray

Member

So what?

The report is a lie - how many rural residents can't get HughesNet or Viasat?

Rural settings are ... rural. There is a huge cost to run facilities, and the locals don't want to pay it. So they get the service they are willing to pay for.

Meanwhile, activists and special-interest groups continue to redefine "broadband" speed, such that yesterday's practical cost-effective solutions get labelled inadequate, a decade before they break-even.
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

silbaco

Premium Member

Re: So what?

Who says they don't want to pay for it? You and they? Because I know they, those who lie in the rural areas. And I know satellite starts at $60 per month, higher than average broadband prices in urban areas.

Rural residents will pay for broadband but you can't pay for something that doesn't exist.
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

elray

Member

Re: So what?

said by silbaco:

Who says they don't want to pay for it? You and they? Because I know they, those who lie in the rural areas. And I know satellite starts at $60 per month, higher than average broadband prices in urban areas.

Rural residents will pay for broadband but you can't pay for something that doesn't exist.

No, they won't.

Satellite has the same basic overhead regardless of location, so basic access for $50/month can be availed anywhere, regardless of density or how few subscribe in your zip code.

Rural broadband has a huge upfront cost to deploy, given the density, and rural non-subscribers, nationwide, have demonstrated that they aren't interested or aren't willing to pay even urban rates for broadband, let alone market rates in sufficient numbers that would make the service even remotely profitable.
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

silbaco

Premium Member

Re: So what?

You are full of it. No one has demonstrated they won't pay urban rates, only your imagination has. Have you ever payed rural rates? Rural internet to the north of me is $55 for 1.5Mbps. To the west it is $70 for 5Mbps. Unsurprisingly, darn near everyone pays for it because internet is practically essential. The average price for internet in states with vast rural populations is higher than that of states with vastly more urban, and the rural areas are usually significantly slower. The penetration rate is actually beyond that of urban areas because unlike urban areas, there is truly no competition.

And satellite is $60 per month plus tax, $10 of which is a mandatory rental fee. And that gives you a whopping 10GB of data.
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

elray

Member

Re: So what?

said by silbaco:

You are full of it. No one has demonstrated they won't pay urban rates, only your imagination has. Have you ever payed rural rates? Rural internet to the north of me is $55 for 1.5Mbps. To the west it is $70 for 5Mbps. Unsurprisingly, darn near everyone pays for it because internet is practically essential. The average price for internet in states with vast rural populations is higher than that of states with vastly more urban, and the rural areas are usually significantly slower. The penetration rate is actually beyond that of urban areas because unlike urban areas, there is truly no competition.

And satellite is $60 per month plus tax, $10 of which is a mandatory rental fee. And that gives you a whopping 10GB of data.

Read the NTIA surveys, read the US Census. The data is there, in which a majority of non-subscribers cite disinterest or cost.

Read the article Karl featured here on broadband in Idaho.
Centurylink offers 92% of its customers broadband, and yet, choice/disinterest and cost are cited as reason why the many don't subscribe.

10GB is a whopping amount of data. Hughesnet starts at $40/month.

Verizon doesn't achieve profitable Fios penetration levels in dense settings, as a majority won't pay the price. Move to a rural setting, and the price has to go way up to cover the capital investment - and you have the same issue, even if some of you are willing to pay the urban price.

We read here every day how "greedy" corporations are. Indeed, that is their function, to earn a profit while delivering a service. IF there was sufficient demand for rural broadband - if you were all willing to pay for it, they'd be fighting tooth and nail for your business.
RonJohn63
join:2013-05-20
New Orleans, LA

RonJohn63

Member

Re: So what?

10GB is a whopping amount of data.
What dope are you smoking?
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

elray

Member

Re: So what?

said by RonJohn63:

10GB is a whopping amount of data.
What dope are you smoking?

I've yet to see anyone here explain why they need anywhere near that volume of data transfer.

No, voip, skype, torrentz, offline backup, video streaming, or bloated farmware aren't necessary, and don't merit a subsidy from the rest of us.
Expand your moderator at work

sk1939
Premium Member
join:2010-10-23
Frederick, MD
ARRIS SB8200
Ubiquiti UDM-Pro
Juniper SRX320

sk1939 to elray

Premium Member

to elray

Re: So what?

said by elray:

said by RonJohn63:

10GB is a whopping amount of data.
What dope are you smoking?

I've yet to see anyone here explain why they need anywhere near that volume of data transfer.

No, voip, skype, torrentz, offline backup, video streaming, or bloated farmware aren't necessary, and don't merit a subsidy from the rest of us.

I take it you define "need" as getting on the internet and visiting Fox News/CNN and online banking. The rest, like Youtube, Google, Amazon, Netflix, is all optional and dosen't matter.

*On What Planet*!

My 92 year old grandmother does more than that on the internet. Just because you choose to not partake available resources does not mean everyone else does not want to either. The same goes for services you deem "nonessential", just because they are for you dosen't mean they aren't for others.
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

elray

Member

Re: So what?

said by sk1939:

said by elray:

said by RonJohn63:

10GB is a whopping amount of data.
What dope are you smoking?

I've yet to see anyone here explain why they need anywhere near that volume of data transfer.

No, voip, skype, torrentz, offline backup, video streaming, or bloated farmware aren't necessary, and don't merit a subsidy from the rest of us.

I take it you define "need" as getting on the internet and visiting Fox News/CNN and online banking. The rest, like Youtube, Google, Amazon, Netflix, is all optional and dosen't matter.

*On What Planet*!

My 92 year old grandmother does more than that on the internet. Just because you choose to not partake available resources does not mean everyone else does not want to either. The same goes for services you deem "nonessential", just because they are for you dosen't mean they aren't for others.

"Want" is nonessential. If you "want" it, you can pay the market price for it, rather than expecting the rest of us to subsidize you.

As for my definition of "need", indeed, no one "needs" even basic internet access, though current technologies support it virtually everywhere. If you want to watch CNN, you can get satellite service, without costing the rest of us billions. Netflix will mail you DVDs, until such time as we decide that particular subsidy should cease. Youtube and Google aren't necessary by any measure.

sk1939
Premium Member
join:2010-10-23
Frederick, MD
ARRIS SB8200
Ubiquiti UDM-Pro
Juniper SRX320

sk1939

Premium Member

Re: So what?

said by elray:

"Want" is nonessential. If you "want" it, you can pay the market price for it, rather than expecting the rest of us to subsidize you.

As for my definition of "need", indeed, no one "needs" even basic internet access, though current technologies support it virtually everywhere. If you want to watch CNN, you can get satellite service, without costing the rest of us billions. Netflix will mail you DVDs, until such time as we decide that particular subsidy should cease. Youtube and Google aren't necessary by any measure.

Except for the fact that even for those who are willing to pay above market price don't receive the service they want due to decreased population density of rural areas.

As far as the internet goes, access to the internet has actually been declared a basic human right by the UN.

»bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2 ··· ow-what/

Who says that it is costing the average tax payer anything? Besides the fact that this is how rural america was electrified back in the day. Public companies aren't "subsidized", they are private companies run by a CEO and other officers that make decisions based on what they think is good for the company.

As far as data goes, 10GB is NOT a "whopping amount of data" although it seems like it at 128kbps that Hughesnet provides (only slightly faster than dialup). It also works out to be about 12 hours of internet surfing a month. Considering in a rural area with nothing better to do, that is not a lot.
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

elray

Member

Re: So what?

said by sk1939:

Except for the fact that even for those who are willing to pay above market price don't receive the service they want due to decreased population density of rural areas.

That's what I said. There aren't enough of you, willing to pay the market price. In the case of your lower-density setting, the price is necessarily much higher - and the majority of you aren't willing to pay it. As LTE deploys, even fewer will be so willing - even though we might both agree that FTTH and even improved copper are more preferable.
said by sk1939:

As far as the internet goes, access to the internet has actually been declared a basic human right by the UN.

»bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2 ··· ow-what/

Thankfully, we pay little attention to the UN, but even if we did, in this case, that motion concerned internet censorship (China, Iran, etc), not access or broadband.
said by sk1939:

Who says that it is costing the average tax payer anything? Besides the fact that this is how rural america was electrified back in the day. Public companies aren't "subsidized", they are private companies run by a CEO and other officers that make decisions based on what they think is good for the company.

Who says? This blog, every major network and newspaper - its undisputed. The only debate is over the form (grants, loan guarantees, "loans" that never get paid) and the receiving entities (middle mile, munis, telcos, coops).

BTOP has been handing out grants like candy for for over four years. The FCC is doing its best to revise USF (rather than retire it) and is giving away hundreds of millions this year - and yes, it is tax-based, no matter how you want to spin it.

Billions in stimulus money were given for rural broadband.

Did you miss the West Virginia and Colorado debacles covered here?

Broadband/Telco public companies are often subsidized by taxpayers. Did you read here how AT&T and Verizon turned down the offer of Connect America funding as inadequate?

sk1939
Premium Member
join:2010-10-23
Frederick, MD
ARRIS SB8200
Ubiquiti UDM-Pro
Juniper SRX320

sk1939

Premium Member

Re: So what?

said by elray:

said by sk1939:

Except for the fact that even for those who are willing to pay above market price don't receive the service they want due to decreased population density of rural areas.

That's what I said. There aren't enough of you, willing to pay the market price. In the case of your lower-density setting, the price is necessarily much higher - and the majority of you aren't willing to pay it. As LTE deploys, even fewer will be so willing - even though we might both agree that FTTH and even improved copper are more preferable.
said by sk1939:

As far as the internet goes, access to the internet has actually been declared a basic human right by the UN.

»bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2 ··· ow-what/

Thankfully, we pay little attention to the UN, but even if we did, in this case, that motion concerned internet censorship (China, Iran, etc), not access or broadband.
said by sk1939:

Who says that it is costing the average tax payer anything? Besides the fact that this is how rural america was electrified back in the day. Public companies aren't "subsidized", they are private companies run by a CEO and other officers that make decisions based on what they think is good for the company.

Who says? This blog, every major network and newspaper - its undisputed. The only debate is over the form (grants, loan guarantees, "loans" that never get paid) and the receiving entities (middle mile, munis, telcos, coops).

BTOP has been handing out grants like candy for for over four years. The FCC is doing its best to revise USF (rather than retire it) and is giving away hundreds of millions this year - and yes, it is tax-based, no matter how you want to spin it.

Billions in stimulus money were given for rural broadband.

Did you miss the West Virginia and Colorado debacles covered here?

Broadband/Telco public companies are often subsidized by taxpayers. Did you read here how AT&T and Verizon turned down the offer of Connect America funding as inadequate?

I live in DC so it's not me per se.

Yes, with the deployment of LTE, which is still not available even in metro areas served by cable and/or DSL, which kind of makes it pointless. That being said, while the cost may be high, the cost is also artificially high for something that is not a commodity (ie finite).

That is true, but lots of businesses are subsidized with few complaints (beef industry I'm looking at you), not to mention other agriculture.

If I recall it was up for debate was that the companies simply didn't want to do it for the relatively meager payout, regardless of actual cost. There's always markup, especially when the government is involved.
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

elray

Member

Re: So what?

said by sk1939:

I live in DC so it's not me per se.

Yes, with the deployment of LTE, which is still not available even in metro areas served by cable and/or DSL, which kind of makes it pointless. That being said, while the cost may be high, the cost is also artificially high for something that is not a commodity (ie finite).

That is true, but lots of businesses are subsidized with few complaints (beef industry I'm looking at you), not to mention other agriculture.

If I recall it was up for debate was that the companies simply didn't want to do it for the relatively meager payout, regardless of actual cost. There's always markup, especially when the government is involved.

Even worse; you're wanting to subsidize someone else with my tax money. Why not let them decide for themselves if they want to pay, and keep Washington's grubby inefficient skimming mitts out of it?

LTE will be a huge game-changer in rural settings, and it will gut any potential for wiring the countryside, since even fewer people will choose to pay the wired price.

That's unfortunate, but people have the right to not spend their money on luxuries like FTTH.

People don't have a beef with beef, and hundreds of other tax-subsidized entities, because they're uneducated, courtesy of the public school monopoly, and they're easily swayed by simple emotion, rather than thinking for themselves. Few engage in actual, informed debate, instead simply closing their minds to anything that contradicts their belief system.

sk1939
Premium Member
join:2010-10-23
Frederick, MD
ARRIS SB8200
Ubiquiti UDM-Pro
Juniper SRX320

sk1939

Premium Member

Re: So what?

said by elray See Profile
Even worse; you're wanting to subsidize someone else with my tax money. Why not let them decide for themselves if they want to pay, and keep Washington's grubby inefficient skimming mitts out of it?

We're from the government and we're here to help.

said by elray See Profile

LTE will be a huge game-changer in rural settings, and it will gut any potential for wiring the countryside, since even fewer people will choose to pay the wired price.

:

Once it's fully deployed at least.

said by elray See Profile

That's unfortunate, but people have the right to not spend their money on luxuries like FTTH.

:

That may be, but we're already subsidizing wireline connections due to the telecom rules (everyone must have a phone), why not put them to use, or at least maintain them properly (not like they can't afford to).

said by elray See Profile

People don't have a beef with beef, and hundreds of other tax-subsidized entities, because they're uneducated, courtesy of the public school monopoly, and they're easily swayed by simple emotion, rather than thinking for themselves. Few engage in actual, informed debate, instead simply closing their minds to anything that contradicts their belief system.

:

Sad but true, the public is poorly educated about a lot of issue, and even worse, many simply don't want to know and/or don't care.

elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

elray

Member

Re: So what?

said by sk1939:

said by elray See Profile

That's unfortunate, but people have the right to not spend their money on luxuries like FTTH.

:

That may be, but we're already subsidizing wireline connections due to the telecom rules (everyone must have a phone), why not put them to use, or at least maintain them properly (not like they can't afford to).

Those telecom rules do not exactly state that "everyone must have a phone", only that most everyone "should" be able to buy dialtone. Currently, that dialtone can be unwired, at the user's option. Given the preference towards wireless, and given that we, the ratepayers and taxpayers are footing the bill, it might be time we give that choice over to the carrier, as wireless may be much more "sustainable", as in cost-effective, and therefore, available to more people for the same budget.

That we're already subsidizing wireline is cause to examine whether we actually should continue, or whether we should retire it, not necessarily add to it.

We have far too many programs that exist in perpetuity, running strictly on political momentum, to our collective detriment. Instead of requiring abject waste to justify their existence, their existence is used to justify requiring more of the same.

bolt
End of the line DSL sucks.
Premium Member
join:2003-11-11
Charlestown, IN

bolt to elray

Premium Member

to elray
Satellite providers are crap when you need decent latency. In my book, satellite is not even close to broadband despite the speeds. If a satellite user wants to do online gaming or use VOIP or any of the myriad of applications that rely on a decent latency, they are simply SOL.
mlcarson
join:2001-09-20
Santa Maria, CA

mlcarson to elray

Member

to elray
There's also a huge cost to deploying in urban environments. The runs can be a heck of a lot easier in rural areas where you don't have a concrete jungle between points A and B. The runs are easier in rural areas -- just longer.

There are plenty of people in rural areas willing to pay for higher levels of service but they simply aren't offered. HughesNet and Viasat have such high latency that it shouldn't be considered a viable option. We could have had a national fiber infrastructure for the amount of money that the carriers spend on redeploying infrastructure in urban environments.

CaptainRR
Premium Member
join:2006-04-21
Blue Rock, OH

CaptainRR

Premium Member

Re: So what?

There are a lot of rural people in my area that would pay for wired broadband. I seen few satellite internet dishes go up around me in the past year and none of them are very happy with them. None of them know that LTE is in are area either.
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

silbaco

Premium Member

Broadband

I would say less than 20% of rural users can get 25Mbps or more if we are talking rural towns. And less than 10% if we are talking people outside of town. Pretty much only fiber can deliver that speed to rural areas. DSL is too much hassle and the relatively small amount of cable deployed is vastly unupgraded.

I was in the 18% until earlier this year. Now I am in neither.

bdon
@ameritech.net

bdon

Anon

Because they're rural

Part of the reason people tend to live in rural areas is that there is more privacy, smaller communities then cities, etc. Those are the pros.. but the cons of living in a rural area include a less diverse power infrastructure, so power outages are common, many people are not on city water/sewer and have to dig wells / use septic tanks and even sanitation can be an issue.

I guess my point is if you want access to high end utilities that are in the cities, MOVE to the cities. No one can honestly expect any utility (power, phone, internet, water) to build out a robust infrastructure in certain areas that have a population of 500 people. It's a ridiculous notion. If you want to live in the country great, but take the good and the bad.

••••••••
Technicholas
Premium Member
join:2010-11-11
West Des Moines, IA

Technicholas

Premium Member

LTE is faster.

It's sad that LTE is faster then my DSL

CaptainRR
Premium Member
join:2006-04-21
Blue Rock, OH

CaptainRR

Premium Member

Re: LTE is faster.

Its sure faster than my other option at the moment for me, DAILUP!

hyphenated
@mycingular.net

hyphenated

Anon

No

I don't believe that. That is probably users whose dslam (or similar rt) supports 6mbps but I bet the number is actually higher who REALLY can't get 6 (or 25 or shatever). The ISP probably doesn't let them have it bc of the copper. So it's x false positive IMO.

Now everyone is like yeh look at this we have broadband but look at what the users are saying.

Np, I'm sure well all be able to our bundled lte soon.
Shuttle83
join:2005-10-23
Capitol Heights, MD

Shuttle83

Member

18% of Rural Residents Can't Get 6 Mbps

Hello All,

The problem is people in rural areas move out to rural areas to have privacy. The problem is news does not get to them in a reasonable time. Therefore, it turns out that is the same problem with the Internet. Here are my three solutions

1) Build a Satellite Internet system that feeds these rural areas
2) Design Fiber infrastructure that runs into the rural areas
3) Build a hybrid of the two systems

Number 1 exists but it costs a lot of money for satellite up and down links for each home.
Number 2 can be done, using PON technology but the cost to run the fiber in rural areas is the problem past that it’s a logistics issue, no one wants to get shot by the uninformed.
Number 3 is the best bet using a satellite earth station to receive and transmit Internet to an ISP and use fiber to get to the people’s homes
Now that I have given these three choices, let’s talk about the real culprit “Money and the Cost of Delivery”.
It is going to cost money to get Internet (Broadband) to rural areas, and someone has to bite the bullet to say. I think the communities should pay part and the government the rest as part of equality in communications act. In any event, here are my three possibilities.
LostInWoods
join:2004-04-14

LostInWoods

Member

Re: 18% of Rural Residents Can't Get 6 Mbps

Your option 3 is actually the worst of all worlds, with all the expense of running fiber to the subscriber, with the godawful internet experience of satellite latency and usage caps. The problem with fiber is not getting it to the ISP - it's getting it to the end subscriber. Rural users are, by definition, more spread out, requiring more digging or stringing per user. That's where the money goes.

My proposed solution to this would be:
1) Recognize that fiber to the subscriber is a natural monopoly, just like power or water, particularly in a rural area. Treat it as such. And ignore the local DSL provider (if any) who is not providing adequate service but wants to continue to milk the cash cow that is their captive customer base.
2) Encourage the formation of local fiber internet coops, structured similarly to an EMC, to provide fiber internet in rural areas. This encouragement can be in the form of tax incentives, grants, or loans from government. Note that such a coop would not be backed by government funds (except perhaps loans) if the project fails.
3) Place performance requirements on any system that makes use of Step 2 such that it's reasonably future-proof. My suggestion is home-run fiber, like what Google is implementing, with a minimum capability of 1 Gbps symmetrical. This capability need not be offered to customers from the outset.

Beyond that, my preference would be that the local coop be structured as a utility, providing and servicing only the fiber connection for a set rate. Service providers could then compete to provide the actual internet service. This is similar to how natural gas is marketed in GA, with one company owning the pipes and having a regulated rate of return, and other companies providing the gas and doing the billing. In reality a rural coop would probably need to create the ISP part as well, at least in the beginning. But who knows - given that the fiber would be installed at the expense of the coop, multiple ISPs might scramble to provide service, and get to the click-stream of their customers for data mining and such.

asdfblah21
join:2013-05-04

asdfblah21

Member

Google fiber makes DSL look like dial-up!!!

All ISP's should really start upgrading their customers to FIBER or at least VDSL.

It seems like nothing ever gets done and they just sit around in their offices all day and overcharge customers for their outdated technology from 1999.

Hazy Arc
join:2006-04-10
Greenwood, SC

Hazy Arc

Member

I Know Firsthand

Greenwood County, SC - with a population of just under 70,000 people, is served by two local incumbents: CenturyLink and Northland Cable. We're not exactly rural when compared to other South Carolina counties, but the fastest connection either ISP offers is 10Mbps.


••••

treich
join:2006-12-12

treich

Member

This is why fixed wireless ISP's come into play

This is why fixed wireless ISP's come into play and No im not talking mobile wireless setups.

Most of these fixed wireless ISP's have to use there own money and get no money from the government so that is why you dont see many of these FWISP's around. So if you live in rural village or town around 500 ppl with no cable or dsl FWISP will be your best friend for HSI!!!

Hall
MVM
join:2000-04-28
Germantown, OH

1 recommendation

Hall

MVM

Who cares....

I have access to DSL (6Mbs), U-Verse (18Mbs, I think), and Time Warner (50Mbs) and for a couple of reasons have stuck with 6M DSL. With multiple PCs, two tablets, smartphones, and three streaming devices (BD, Roku, and Dish Hopper), we've never had issues. Granted, we really never use all of those devices at the same time (and that's not because of a lack bandwidth reasons). The other reason is $$$. I'm simply not interested, or willing, to pay a lot of money for higher speeds that we don't need.
tkdslr
join:2004-04-24
Pompano Beach, FL

tkdslr

Member

Re: Who cares....

I have access to aDSL (0.3Mbs), U-Verse (NA), Wisp(3-50Mbs), and Comcast (1.5 to 50Mbs) and for some good reasons have chosen none of the above, too expensive.

Instead, I tether off of my Smart phone's 4g/5GB per month access. Sure it's bit of a hassle, (changing browser id, rooting phone, watching data consumption, etc.), but saving 60$+ a month has it's benefits.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

KrK

Premium Member

Those numbers seem very optimistic.

I think it's much higher then 18%

IowaCowboy
Lost in the Supermarket
Premium Member
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA

IowaCowboy

Premium Member

LTE is the answer

I think the best answer to rural broadband is wireless (LTE) as it does not make economic sense from a service provider's perspective to run fiber or coax to sparsely populated areas.

I think it is best to meet the needs or rural residents with LTE as that has lower infrastructure costs but will get them off of dial-up. And LTE is certainly better than DSL and satellite.

When I use LTE on the go, it performs comparibly to my cable modem. The only thing keeping me from kicking Comcast to the curb is low caps on VZW.

While I don't think VZW is the answer to rural broadband (unless they have more realistic caps), I think LTE would be a good solution for rural broadband whether it is deployed by non-profit co-ops or by a for profit service provider.
Montezuma
join:2009-11-15

Montezuma

Member

Re: LTE is the answer

said by IowaCowboy:

I think the best answer to rural broadband is wireless (LTE) as it does not make economic sense from a service provider's perspective to run fiber or coax to sparsely populated areas.

I think it is best to meet the needs or rural residents with LTE as that has lower infrastructure costs but will get them off of dial-up. And LTE is certainly better than DSL and satellite.

When I use LTE on the go, it performs comparibly to my cable modem. The only thing keeping me from kicking Comcast to the curb is low caps on VZW.

While I don't think VZW is the answer to rural broadband (unless they have more realistic caps), I think LTE would be a good solution for rural broadband whether it is deployed by non-profit co-ops or by a for profit service provider.

While you are technically correct, you are, in practical and "real world" terms, incorrect. You can see my other post(below) to see why.

I would like to add that I have seen some group(no idea what group/company/corporation) laying fiber, but it's probably AT&T running fiber for nearby cellular towers(for Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, etc, not the "little people", who make such ventures possible and need affordable services most).

Data services are needed by my girlfriend and I, as she works for AT&T and has to have Internet access for business purposes. We receive no assistance from AT&T, for whatever reason, but we have to pay for some form of Internet access. That or she will be out of work, which isn't an option.

You know, seeing how cellular towers require infrastructure to operate, I really fail to see how it is the magical option so many believe it to be. Laying more fiber/other cabling should be possible and would provide more benefit, in the end.
Montezuma

1 edit

Montezuma

Member

I get nothing.

I'm posting this from my parent's home.

Of course, the "National Broadband Map" shows AT&T offers Uverse, but that is a boldfaced lie. AT&T only offers Uverse in, maybe, 10 percent of my entire county. Comcast only offers television services. I would love and be ecstatic over receiving 1 Mbps, much the less 6 Mbps or 25 Mbps.

I could pay approximately $357.00 a month, on a two year contract, for a DS1(or T1, whatever one wishes to call it) from AT&T(the cheapest out of the competition). After paying over $450 a month, for the last three months, though I have been paying slightly less for longer, for Verizon Wireless LTE, I might do it. It is highly frustrating to live in rural areas, when one needs a stable and affordable Internet connection. It's time to see affordable and and effective data services offered to the rural customers, who have also been funneling currency into communication corporations coffers for decades.

People can argue that people like me "should move into less rural areas", but that is incredibly disingenuous. Why should I have to lose my home, my property, to obtain services that my money, as well as the money of people around me, has been funding for quite some time? Landline-based broadband has been around far long enough to provide it to areas like mine, with far better service penetration than currently exists.

EDIT

Just to note: I realize that having access to Verizon Wireless LTE wouldn't be "nothing", but seeing how using close to 50GB last month cost me $450 this past month, that option isn't anything close to affordable. Wireless isn't, and most likely will never be, a legitimate option. It should be, but at this point, we aren't headed to such a future.

•••
margegenever
join:2010-08-19
USA

margegenever

Member

Not sure what "rural" means

I'm not sure what rural means - suburbs?

I live in Loudoun county VA. A suburban area (40 miles from the White House in DC). No cable, no DSL, no fiber. I pay $100 per month for 1MB fixed wireless. The only option. County government allowed monopoly providers Verizon and Comcast to cherry-pick their provision areas.

Sad to see the city-dwellers' attitude of "I've got mine, screw you'. A long time ago, the rural electrification program recognized that electricity was a requirement if the country was to grow and succeed. There are times when we need to think beyond just one's own need as an individual.

It's a shame that 3rd world countries have better Internet access than large parts of the USA.
Shuttle83
join:2005-10-23
Capitol Heights, MD

Shuttle83

Member

Re: Not sure what "rural" means

This is exactly what I meant by “sliders” in my post to “LostInWoods”. The idea that you will have this coop that will band together and provide for last mile coverage is a good concept and it makes sense, but try fighting the Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T money machine and tell me how it goes for you. The facts are such coops only work if the goal of getting neighborhood fiber run for all. I mean all, because once you start this “oh they can’t have fiber because they are in the wrong part of town” crap guess what no company in its right mind is going to touch you. Because of bad press, not to mention that fiber coops can rarely get their acts together long enough to mount a good defense to putting in local fiber. Good intentions, and the old no government backing sounds good but in reality state and federal funds are often used for infrastructure builds and don’t get this mixed-up, fiber deployment becomes a state and federal issue very fast if they want to use it for emergency connectivity least we forget eminent domain laws. I guess in other words what I am saying is that you need government money to fight Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T money.
tanzam75
join:2012-07-19

tanzam75 to margegenever

Member

to margegenever
said by margegenever:

I'm not sure what rural means - suburbs?

No -- most suburbs are classified as urban.

A rural area is an area that has not been determined by the last Census (2010) to be urban. Speaking very generally, an area is urban if it has a population density greater than 500 per square mile, and a population over 2,500. There are a bunch of other rules for classification, involving contiguity with other urban areas, gaps through exempt areas, etc.: »www.census.gov/geo/refer ··· n164.pdf

The northeastern part of Loudoun County is urban. The southwestern part of Loudoun County is rural. »www.census.gov/geo/maps- ··· _Map.pdf

linicx
Caveat Emptor
Premium Member
join:2002-12-03
United State

1 edit

linicx

Premium Member

82% is PR spin and wishful thinking

Rural America is where whole counties in many states cannot get 6Mbps. Some communities have no phone, cable, internet or cell service. The Midwest is not NYC or LA or Chicago.

Rural America is where telco and cable giants do not want to serve anyone - which is why COX and Verizon pulled out of mid size and small markets years ago - and why AT&T never invested in rural areas. Rural was left to local governments. Century Telephone was one of those rural companies that survived, grew, changed its name, gobbled up others, changed its name, took over larger companies, changed its name, moved nationwide changed its name, and is now selling 100TB to France and England, offers 45Mbps to Las Vegas, and dialup to others.

Neosho, MO gets better speed than Seneca. Tulsa, OK gets better speed than Grove, and it has better speed than Jay. Fayetteville, AR gets better speed than Gravette. Dallas,TX gets better speed than Richardson. It is what it is. There is no "fixing" what is wrong as long as telco and cable boards are allowed make the rules for WE THE PEOPLE.

isp10002
join:2012-10-24
ARRIS CM3200
Asus RT-AX88

isp10002

Member

Sat?

Really how is a expensive capped service "Broadband" I know what it feels like to be on a capped service when I had Verizon 3g with a 5g cap for 60$ a month was just terrible. Sat broadband has high latency unreliable,and just like hugnesnet has been known to deliver not even close to the advertised speed.

ajklfsadf
@myvzw.com

ajklfsadf

Anon

city folk

I like how city folk, likely many who have very rarely if ever seen manual labor in their lives, who don't have a clue what work is besides sitting on their rear end in an air conditioned office or flipping burgers (or whatever city folk do, I truly don't know besides the drivel I see on tv), can argue politics in a thread about the poor availability of internet for those of us in agriculture and rural areas (which would have not even noticeable impact on you). I don't care to subsidize a lot of things in city areas either, yet I have to. It goes both ways, you subsidize (some of) "us", "we" subsidize "you". How would you like it if we rural folk thought we could run your city folk lifestyle? You say we waste, I say you do nothing but waste and leech on society, and pollute needlessly (many of you). Provide your own food, fix your own houses, fix your own vehicles, then we'll talk. By the way, I own my own land, grow my own hay and feed my own cattle. I do not have any crops that are sold. Scrutinizing me for any subsidies that I don't (directly) receive or benefit from, when you benefit from subsidies in likely a few ways yourself, is ludicrous.
page: 1 · 2 · next