Siryak
join:2005-11-26
 ·WildBlue
| reply to Tzale
Re: Average U.S. Broadband Speed: 1.9Mbps
said by Tzale  :We live in a Capitalistic FREE society... It's your problem if you're living somewhere where broadband service is unavailable or sucks. Want better service? Move or wait. No single person or organization is responsible for this, we are all equally responsible for services that are profitable/unprofitable in this country. If it's unprofitable, don't expect a corporation to waste their time on you. -Tzale Use dial-up or satellite for a few months, heck even for a day, and then come back and say that.
The fact of the matter is city folk need us and we need them. If the city folk stop scratching the country folks back then the country folk are going to stop scratching theirs. The fact of the matter is most people including country people use the internet today and are not willing to live without. If you run the majority of the country people to the city then where is our food going to come from? I for one live in the country not by choice, but because I am 17 and this is where my parents live so I don't get a choice. Because there is no decent internet out here I will not be staying in the country and I am going to move to where there is some decent internet whenever I graduate and go to college. The world is shifting to be highly dependent on the internet. I seriously doubt I am not the only one that is not willing to "suck it up and deal with it." So if everyone starts moving to the city who is going to grow/raise our nations food? While the older people may not move, the nations youth that will be growing/raising our food in the future will be a different story.
--
Wildblue Pro Pack / Beam 40 / Laredo NOC / Windows MCE SP2 |
|
KUppiano
Karl Uppiano
join:2003-02-02
Ferndale, WA
| Whether you like dial-up or satellite or not, rural internetification costs lots of money. In the city, you can run a few miles of FIOS or even get DSL to run down existing copper pairs, and get hundreds of customers.
In the sticks, you run several miles of FIOS (forget DSL) and you get maybe four or five customers. No provider in their right mind would invest in such a thing. It is very unlikely that they would break even.
It was the same with rural electrification and telephone service. It will happen eventually, but it will take longer. |
|
Siryak
join:2005-11-26
·WildBlue
| said by KUppiano :Whether you like dial-up or satellite or not, rural internetification costs lots of money. In the city, you can run a few miles of FIOS or even get DSL to run down existing copper pairs, and get hundreds of customers. In the sticks, you run several miles of FIOS (forget DSL) and you get maybe four or five customers. No provider in their right mind would invest in such a thing. It is very unlikely that they would break even. It was the same with rural electrification and telephone service. It will happen eventually, but it will take longer. Yes, but most people don't think it should ever happen. My same argument above would have applied to electricity and telephone if they wouldn't have made a bill making it mandatory. We would not have any people to raise our food if they didn't force the electric and telephone companies to provide for us, because everyone would have moved to the city. Electricity and telephone is not required to get by, but who in their right mind would go without it. Internet is becoming the same way.
--
Wildblue Pro Pack / Beam 40 / Laredo NOC / Windows MCE SP2 |
|
Portmonkey
scurvy
Premium
join:2004-04-09
Southern IL
| reply to KUppiano
Average would be nice, but I don't think it is something people will ever see in this little one horse town here in Southern IL. $45 per month for 1Mbit/128 (DSL) and that's only if you also subscribe to their long distance phone service, otherwise it's $55 per month. I'd happily move for no other reason than to have more bandwidth at a better price, but it's just not in the budget at the moment among other reasons for needing to stay here. New technology to overcome this problem would be welcome, but I guess there's not enough people in this area to make it worth consideration. About the only good part of DSL in this area is that it is very reliable for what it is considering I don't remember the last time service was down. |
|
KUppiano
Karl Uppiano
join:2003-02-02
Ferndale, WA
| reply to Siryak
said by Siryak :said by KUppiano :Whether you like dial-up or satellite or not, rural internetification costs lots of money. In the city, you can run a few miles of FIOS or even get DSL to run down existing copper pairs, and get hundreds of customers. In the sticks, you run several miles of FIOS (forget DSL) and you get maybe four or five customers. No provider in their right mind would invest in such a thing. It is very unlikely that they would break even. It was the same with rural electrification and telephone service. It will happen eventually, but it will take longer. Yes, but most people don't think it should ever happen. My same argument above would have applied to electricity and telephone if they wouldn't have made a bill making it mandatory. We would not have any people to raise our food if they didn't force the electric and telephone companies to provide for us, because everyone would have moved to the city. Electricity and telephone is not required to get by, but who in their right mind would go without it. Internet is becoming the same way. Wages and prices are nature's communication channel telling people the true value of goods and services. Currently, it is simply too expensive to wire the countryside with these high-tech amenities.
Many people would live in the country because they prefer the lifestyle. Without high-speed internet. Or phones. Or even electricity for that matter. Face it, we humans spent the vast bulk of our time on this planet without those things, and we flourished quite handily, thank you very much.
Even if farmers started moving to the city, it wouldn't happen overnight. The gradual reduction of the food supply would cause a gradual increase in farm prices, and we would reach a new equilibrium. Maybe farmers would make enough money that they could afford to bring high-speed internet to the country for the true cost of doing it, instead of the government forcing the city folk to pay for it whether anyone really wanted it enough to pay for it of their own free will. |
|
Siryak
join:2005-11-26
·WildBlue
| said by KUppiano :said by Siryak :said by KUppiano :Whether you like dial-up or satellite or not, rural internetification costs lots of money. In the city, you can run a few miles of FIOS or even get DSL to run down existing copper pairs, and get hundreds of customers. In the sticks, you run several miles of FIOS (forget DSL) and you get maybe four or five customers. No provider in their right mind would invest in such a thing. It is very unlikely that they would break even. It was the same with rural electrification and telephone service. It will happen eventually, but it will take longer. Yes, but most people don't think it should ever happen. My same argument above would have applied to electricity and telephone if they wouldn't have made a bill making it mandatory. We would not have any people to raise our food if they didn't force the electric and telephone companies to provide for us, because everyone would have moved to the city. Electricity and telephone is not required to get by, but who in their right mind would go without it. Internet is becoming the same way. Wages and prices are nature's communication channel telling people the true value of goods and services. Currently, it is simply too expensive to wire the countryside with these high-tech amenities. Many people would live in the country because they prefer the lifestyle. Without high-speed internet. Or phones. Or even electricity for that matter. Face it, we humans spent the vast bulk of our time on this planet without those things, and we flourished quite handily, thank you very much. Even if farmers started moving to the city, it wouldn't happen overnight. The gradual reduction of the food supply would cause a gradual increase in farm prices, and we would reach a new equilibrium. Maybe farmers would make enough money that they could afford to bring high-speed internet to the country for the true cost of doing it, instead of the government forcing the city folk to pay for it whether anyone really wanted it enough to pay for it of their own free will. So you would rather let food prices rise than pay a small tax on your internet bill? To each his own I guess.
--
Wildblue Pro Pack / Beam 40 / Laredo NOC / Windows MCE SP2 |
|
KUppiano
Karl Uppiano
join:2003-02-02
Ferndale, WA
| said by Siryak :So you would rather let food prices rise than pay a small tax on your internet bill? To each his own I guess. Don't be ridiculous. It's the same thing -- except with the free market you keep government coercion out of it, and people make their own choices. |
|
