| This proves that deregulation AND captialism can work So no government agency had to DEMAND that telcos provide broadband service at a loss. A demand existed for broadband and these 4 companies started up to meet it.
These 4 are good examples of why government should stay out of regulating broadband and taxing the taxpayers to provide it. |
|
|
|
stevephl
join:2000-11-27
Colorado Springs, CO | Agreed, no governmental intrusion as well as no taxing let the free market take its course. |
|
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
1 edit | You guys know nothing about Oregon ... ...and the title of this article is (once again) very misleading. "Rural Oregon" is hardly being served by these companies. It Should be "Small Wireless Companies Serve One Tiny Part of 'rural' Oregon Well". And that part happens to be the richest, fastest-growing city in Central Oregon, and its surrounding area. What is referred to as 'rural' here has pockets of urban-like population density in the form of retirement communities and resorts; e.g., Webformix' primary reason for existing is to serve the Crooked River Ranch resort. And two of the companies listed (Clearwire and ILoveMyWiFi) are actually Metro Bend mobile providers more than the outskirts.
The wealth of this area, coupled with the High Desert geography ideally suited for wireless (mostly flat and unobstructed, punctuated by the occasional butte for towers), make this more of a niche situation than an example of how to provide universal coverage. Most of Central Oregon (and area several times the size of new Jersey) and almost all of rural Oregon has no broadband. Maybe if the TV "white space" frequencies ever do get freed up, that may change (they work well in foliaged/hilly terrain).
Who over said telcos should be compelled to offer a service at a loss? |
|
 wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | said by PDXPLT:Who over said telcos should be compelled to offer a service at a loss? People on this website say it all the time. Look at what is happening with ATT's Uverse service. All these whacko commies are insisting (ie. some towns in Illinois) that if ATT wants to provide service to anyone, they need to provide service to the entire population. For this very reason ATT told them to take a hike and passed over those municipalities. In the end the consumers lost having the chance for another choice due to the pig headedness of some local government.
--
с новым годом |
|
 John GaltForward, MarchPremium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:3 | reply to PDXPLT
What PDXPLT  said...!
Long valleys, 10-20 miles wide with virtually no trees equals WISP paradise.
--
A is A |
|
 KeepOnRockinMusic Lover ForeverPremium
join:2002-11-08
Beaverton, OR | reply to PDXPLT
Yep, that's about the size of it. |
|
 cdigioiaPremium
join:2005-06-08
korea, repub | reply to PDXPLT
Agreed,
These WISPs don't provide coverage to "central oregon" per se, they provide it to the Bend metropolitan area. I relatively affluent area with many relatively wealthy retirees.
That still leaves the other 99% of Central/Eastern Oregon without broadband geographically speaking.
However to be fair, while Central/Eastern Oregon is mostly flat desert, there are some hills in the Bend area...at least to make it comparable to most of the inland US which is itself quite flat. |
|
