| Assholes! Now I going to stuck with hughesnet and dial up forever. :| |
|
| Good news for all the mom and pop wireless providers. |
|
 MrMoodyFree range slavePremium
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC | reply to yolarry
said by yolarry:Now I going to stuck with hughesnet and dial up forever. :| You would have been in the other 5% anyway, and it would take 10 years for you to find that out.
--
"It is absurd to say that our country can issue $30 million in bonds and not $30 million in currency. Both are promises to pay, but one promise fattens the usurers and the other helps the people."-Thomas Edison |
|
 DaveDudeNo Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1 | reply to yolarry
I dont know but i used bonded ISDN for years, might be faster then hughs |
|
|
|
1 edit | reply to MrMoody
said by MrMoody :
You would have been in the other 5% anyway, and it would take 10 years for you to find that out.
Thank you, at least one other person on this site is willing to admit that this plan was never going to be the panacea for unserved rural areas. |
|
MrMoodyFree range slavePremium
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC | said by probboy:this plan was never going to be the panacea for unserved rural areas. No, no plan that sets out to serve x% of the US ever will. Either it has to be 100% in a reasonable length of time or something specifically delegated to unserved rural areas only. Anything else will naturally concentrate on the cities, where a filtered, capped wireless service would get used for mobile internet, while rural homes wait for someday.
--
"It is absurd to say that our country can issue $30 million in bonds and not $30 million in currency. Both are promises to pay, but one promise fattens the usurers and the other helps the people."-Thomas Edison |
|
1 edit | I think all these plans work around the proverbial 800 lb elephant in the room: either we, as a society, decide to provide high-speed internet access to rural areas or we decide we aren't going to. If we are going to provide access, let's build out a future-proof network like FTTP or FTTN (where possible) or fixed wireless solutions (where a wired approach doesn't work) using existing subsidies (like the universal service charge, for example). If we, as a society, decide not to build out rural networks, then let's eliminate the universal service fund.
Half-baked plans like M2Z's or Google's (& others') white space broadband are never going to provide access to unserved rural areas, regardless of what any CEO or press release says. |
|
| reply to probboy
said by probboy:Thank you, at least one other person on this site is willing to admit that this plan was never going to be the panacea for unserved rural areas. Probably not, but 95% of America is more than 95% of the population. More than 5% of the nation is technically uninhabited.
--
"This is a bus. You know how big a bus is?" |
|
MrMoodyFree range slavePremium
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC | It is completely beyond doubt that they meant 95% of the population. |
|
| Not completely beyond doubt... Coverage is sometimes express in terms of geographic area.
However, I found the FCC filing. They are talking population. My mistake.
quote:
Require the licensee to provide signal coverage and offer service to: 1) at least 50
percent of the total population of the nation within four years of commencement of
the license term and 2) at least 95 percent of the total population of the nation at the
end of the 10-year license term.
--
"This is a bus. You know how big a bus is?" |
|
| reply to yolarry
So sorry you don't get Wireless Welfare. |
|
