 MrMoodyFree range slavePremium
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC | reply to probboy
Re: Assholes! 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. |
