Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
1 edit | reply to pnh102
Re: "Because we can't even agree there's a problem"
said by pnh102  :Wow! And this happened without a "national broadband policy" too! For the are they were living in, the access to broadband could've been avaliable much sooner. Hell, old age is a way to die, but I wouldn't call Castro dying in a retirement home much of a successful assasination plot either.
I still have relatives and friends in locations that aren't the boonies, yet still have nothing but possibly a satellite offering. And no, I still won't consider satellite an honest broadband solution. 2-4x the cost for half the service of a traditional broadband provider isn't exactly "broadband covered".
We could certainly wait until 2050, 2100, etc. to roll on out until 256k coverage is avaliable everywhere in the US...but by then the slow "industry motivated" wiring movement would be waaay behind and nigh-useless for folks needs either. Perhaps having government wire the nation much like telephones isn't *the* solution, but the "we'll get to it whenever" moving force of broadband providers today isn't exactly utopia either. |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | reply to marigolds
My bad, just grabbed the first one I googled...
![]() |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to marigolds
quote:
Especially the suggestion that satellite always provides competition.
The only people suggesting that are those who haven't used it for any extended period of time, or whom are financially or politically motivated to portray the market as more competitive than it actually is. |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode :Oh I know, I was just kind of opining in response to the general commentary of all the thread responses that suggests that if we're talking about populated areas, we're talking about real competition.... Oh well, I would definitely agree with that 
Especially the suggestion that satellite always provides competition. There are simply too many small business functions in particularly that satellite cannot adequately handle.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | reply to marigolds
Oh I know, I was just kind of opining in response to the general commentary of all the thread responses that suggests that if we're talking about populated areas, we're talking about real competition.... |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode :I don't buy this idea that "Metro" = served though. My point wasn't that metro=served.
My point was that metro=not in the middle of nowhere. In other words, that the number of rural whistlestops and isolated farmhouses that need to be served is shrinking and that those isolated farmhouses are growing closer and closer to cities.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
1 edit | reply to marigolds
I don't buy this idea that "Metro" = served though. There are portions of Brooklyn that can't get DSL, and many third tier cities that have only the choice of a half-assed cable provider drowning in debt, etc....or a well off cable provider that can sodomize users because their only competitive pressure is a local telco offering late 90's interleaved technology or what have you...
It's a mistake to assume that metro=broadband competitive utopia, because that's just not accurate. And obviously, rural competition is worse.
And as broadband becomes increasingly used for social services via website, I think the issue of broad penetration does require more serious thought than investors and other financially motivated individuals are willing to give from their rather myopic, self-serving positions... |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to Ahrenl
Most of the midwest is near a metro area now... you are thinking of the great plains
(That map is 10 years old and the metro area coverage increased about 40-60% since then.)
But, it does illustrate nicely that most of the United States is not far from a metro. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| reply to Thaler
said by Thaler :I have relatives in Louisiana that *just* got broadband made avaliable to them. Wow! And this happened without a "national broadband policy" too!
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA | reply to fiberguy
YMMV though.
I have relatives in Louisiana that *just* got broadband made avaliable to them. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to PDXPLT
quote:
Methinksts it is far more likely that this characterization is "spin" intended to demonize the policy of ubiquitious BB deployment as much as possible, in order to favor a policy that benefits short-term business interests as much as possible.
Eloquently put and 100% accurate. |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to fiberguy
Well the question was "what is the farthest distance in the continental United States from a metropolitan statistical area." So I was simply answering that. The map doesn't take into account infrastructure at all. Hell I bet they have GREAT service in Aspen Colorado. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to Ahrenl
That map, although interesting, doesn't speak much for broadband deployment.
Take two states, called the midwest,...Minnesota and Iowa.. (And some people still call Ohio the "midwest" when they are more eastern than anything) but Minnesota and Iowa... both of those states have broadband in places most people wouldn't think broadband exists. Iowa, for being mostly farm land, actually has some pretty good rural coverage. As for Minneosta, many of the smaller areas have broadband too..
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-reitchous and lazy..." |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | reply to marigolds
Quite a bit actually.. there's this big swath of country called the Mid-West.
 |
|
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :Those who want this BB policy expect the taxpayers to pay for broadband to every little rural whistle stop and farmhouse, and damn the cost. Who, specifically, says this?
I find it hard to believe anyone would:
-- The chances of implementing such an idea would be very low;
-- It's not at all what other countries with more successful deployments have done;
-- It's not at all what the U.S. did in the past for ubiquitious telephone and electricity deployment.
Methinksts it is far more likely that this characterization is "spin" intended to demonize the policy of ubiquitious BB deployment as much as possible, in order to favor a policy that benefits short-term business interests as much as possible. |
|
ossito16
join:2004-07-31
Whiting, IN
·RCN CABLE
| reply to marigolds
What socialist country are u talking about? I know you don't mean the "big govt is better" usa. Or instead of big govt maybe we are run by the corp's, which would make us an oligarchy. But maybe I am wrong and we are socialist country where 3 or 5% of population controls 90+% of wealth. |
|
richardpor
Fur it up
join:2003-04-19
Portland, OR
1 edit | reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :said by Cabal :Well, at least I agree with something in these multiple articles. Can someone tell me again why we're expecting companies to roll out services and infrastructure to areas that will never even pay off the cost of that infrastructure in our lifetimes? Those who want this BB policy expect the taxpayers to pay for broadband to every little rural whistle stop and farmhouse, and damn the cost. In other words, become more of a socialist country than we already are. You forgot one import item the broadband socialist want with a national broadband policy: price controls. They want their cake but do not even want to pay wholesale. |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
1 edit | reply to BosstonesOwn
Re: "Why can't we take the usf slush fund and ..."
said by BosstonesOwn :Why can't we take the usf slush fund and actually use it for something other then letting the companies dip in to make their bottom line look better. Yes, why are we still spending zillions to make universal landline voice service available to anyone who can afford to pay the monthly bill? |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: "Because we can't even agree there's a problem"
said by TKJunkMail :Those who want this BB policy expect the taxpayers to pay for broadband to every little rural whistle stop and farmhouse, and damn the cost. In other words, become more of a socialist country than we already are. Leaving out Alaska, which is like addressing another country all by itself, what is the farthest distance in the continental United States from a metropolitan statistical area (including all MSAs, CMSAs, and PMSAs)?
In other words, how much of a "whistle stop and farmhouse" are we talking about?
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
jytr
join:2005-02-03
Cliffwood, NJ | reply to TKJunkMail
Socialism for the wealthy and capitalism for the rest of us.
Peace
"America. Home of the free and enslaved" (C) 2007 James T. Romano |
|
