how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
 ·Site5.com
 ·Comcast
 ·Callcentric
| reply to JimmySask
Re: yea said by JimmySask:
Geography has nothing to do with it. I live in Saskatchewan, Canada, population: =/- 1,000,000. Geographically, we are roughly twice the size of most states in the US. Why does this matter? The Telco here has at LEAST 1.5/384 ADSL to roughly %80 of the population, and has just announced that they will now be expanding to even more remote rural areas, via wireless broadband @ 2mbps/128kbps. Not blazing speeds, but because they use land-based towers,it is lower latency than satellite, and far better than dialup. If they can get service to that many people, in an area so geographically spread out that roughly %50 of our population is considered rural, and as a company still post excellent profits, why can't anybody else?
First, the government has to make a dedication to rolling this broadband out. Either that or a cable/dsl company has to foot the bill for it. That is part of the problem as I see it. I know a lot of areas that don't even have cable TV much the less broadband due to the fact it is so rural. Why should DSL/cable providers run services all the way out there if they only get one customer or two? It makes no sense to them.
Really, it all comes down to money.
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal | |
| Exactly! The company I mentioned has been expanding to most communities with population of X, obviously the most profitable ones first. I think the latest bit in the paper said that any community of 150 ppl or more has DSL now. After that, most things that are smaller are a money losing proposition. Hence the wireless, Each tower with a range off approx 30km, LOS. | | |
|
|
