| reply to ThrowDemsOut
Re: Modern broadband speeds from IBEC It is slow, but it beats dialup. And, in some remote rural locations it may be the only way some folks will ever get broadband. Too far for DSL, and no one else is going to drop coax or fiber in such sparse areas. |
|
| said by rmmoody:It is slow, but it beats dialup. And, in some remote rural locations it may be the only way some folks will ever get broadband. Too far for DSL, and no one else is going to drop coax or fiber in such sparse areas. That's what wireless is for...
--
3500/512 5.7 GHz Motorola Canopy Wireless; FoxValley.net
'It looks just like a Telefunken U47 !' |
|
 CheesePremium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1 | said by jay_rm:said by rmmoody:It is slow, but it beats dialup. And, in some remote rural locations it may be the only way some folks will ever get broadband. Too far for DSL, and no one else is going to drop coax or fiber in such sparse areas. That's what wireless is for... And if wireless doesn't serve the area? |
|
|
|
 james
join:2001-02-26
CWCville USA | said by Cheese:And if wireless doesn't serve the area? Then expand it to serve the area... You could expand the wireless coverage for a fraction of the cost of building a BPL network. |
|
CheesePremium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1 | said by james:said by Cheese:And if wireless doesn't serve the area? Then expand it to serve the area... You could expand the wireless coverage for a fraction of the cost of building a BPL network. And since you think they should expand, do you plan on helping them with the cost? |
|
| reply to jay_rm
**IF** you have wireless coverage. I'm in rural Texas.
We are less than 2 miles from DSL, and they will not bring it any closer. Verizon wireless is ... OK - on a good day, I may hit up to 100K, which beats 48K. |
|
| reply to james
Well obviously Verizon and Sprint don't share that opinion, or they would be expanding in our area, as well as many others. |
|
james
join:2001-02-26
CWCville USA | reply to Cheese
said by Cheese:And since you think they should expand, do you plan on helping them with the cost? I'm under the impression that they're already getting taxpayer money in order to install a technology that has failed time and time again. Sure it's a loan, but guess what, they're going to fail and go bankrupt and none of the money will be repaid.
I'd rather pay twice as much in taxes and have it spent well than pay half as much in taxes and have it all wasted. |
|
| reply to james
Wireless is certainly an option. How well does it perform in more rugged parts of the country where line of sight is not always there? The REC's built out electrical distributions in the 40's and 50's. That infrastructure is still there, has been maintained and grown in the decades since. Seems to me if it can be used to deliver broadband at a reasonable cost, then it should be considered. Having said that, the interference issues MUST be worked out. Just my two cents. |
|
| reply to Cheese
said by Cheese:said by jay_rm:said by rmmoody:It is slow, but it beats dialup. And, in some remote rural locations it may be the only way some folks will ever get broadband. Too far for DSL, and no one else is going to drop coax or fiber in such sparse areas. That's what wireless is for... And if wireless doesn't serve the area? You usually have to build wireless, T-1s, or fiber into the area to backhaul the BPL traffic anyway because BPL can't do long haul. This is for rural areas, so T-1 costs are going to be outrageous. The only fiber this rural area will see is Metamucil. That leaves wireless. So, do you mess with BPL feedpoints, repeaters, and electrically dirty lines, or just install wireless and be done with it? |
|
