idjk
@208.24.x.x
| reply to satellite68
Re: Map it
It cost us 41 million to be told by the IRS that they were sending out rebate checks (like we didn't know) can you imagine what it would cost for a map like this , plus it would take 10 years and be no good by the time it came out.
And if there is a market for BB in backwater that will make money for someone or some company then it will get to backwater but not before the more profitable places have been used up.
I don't want the gov. getting into anything else -it always cost more and works less when they do! |
|
satellite68
join:2007-04-11
Louisville, KY | Uh, yeah. You're obviously clueless about the capabilities of current mapping software...
www.esri.com
And who said anything about the gov't getting involved? |
|
Vespid
join:2002-09-24
Sharon, MA
| The mapping is the easy part...the data is the challenge. If you have ever tried to collect broadband coverage data from telcos or MSOs you would understand that they view their coverage data as extremely confidential. The FCC protects this coverage data from prying public eyes as well..which is why they release the pathetic ZIP Code broadband analyses. National maps of broadband coverage could be assembled within weeks (by a small team of analysts), were the various service providers required to disclose coverage availability...so the lack of a broadband policy is clearly driven by our governments inability to elevate the public good above the desires of corporations. |
|
satellite68
join:2007-04-11
Louisville, KY
 ·Vonage
 ·Insight Communicat..
| Well, what I'm saying is if they want to continue recv'ing USF funds on the telco side, we should require them to give up the data. And on the cable side, we should hold them accountable through the right of way/franchise agreements.
WE hold them by the testicles and we should start squeezing them to get the data. What, are both telcos and cable operators gonna go out and tear up all that infrastructure to keep the public from their precious data? Hardly! |
|
