 ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4 | reply to rradina
Re: Move to a rural area; get fiber! said by rradina:Amazing what USF is funding. Fiber to rural homes! Who would have guessed. I'm sure these are exceptions but if it smells like Illinois politics, it probably is. And watch out when they apply it to high speed Internet! As the article points out - these ultra rural areas used to have wireless telephone access at much cheaper costs. But since the USF doesn't subsidize wireless access, companies sprang up to suck down USF fees to wire these areas best served by wireless solutions.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by ThrowDemsOut:As the article points out - these ultra rural areas used to have wireless telephone access at much cheaper costs. But since the USF doesn't subsidize wireless access, companies sprang up to suck down USF fees to wire these areas best served by wireless solutions. Good point. In many out-of-the-way places outside of the USA, the primary means of communication is cell phone with no landline options available. I don't see why we could not do something like that here.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! |
|
Reviews:
 ·Armstrong Zoom ..
| In many rural areas, like where I live, there is no cell coverage. I guess I do not see it. Maybe what others consider rural (where there are stop signs instead of street light) is different?
Rural is where there are, yes middle class, that live in locations which barely have basic services. There is definitely no cable, pots is sloppy, and cell is a lower grade if any signal at all. People raise there children in those areas just like anyone else would except there may be more room.
So in rural areas I disagree. The primary means in rural areas is indeed pots since there is no cell coverage but there is pots coverage everywhere due to USF. |
|
|
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | said by keyboard5684:Rural is where there are, yes middle class, that live in locations which barely have basic services. There is definitely no cable, pots is sloppy, and cell is a lower grade if any signal at all. People raise there children in those areas just like anyone else would except there may be more room. And then the kids run to the cities when they turn 18 to escape a 3rd world existence. |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | reply to keyboard5684
I'm not sure what your point is. Rural areas offer many freedoms that urban areas don't. For instance, if kids want to take a hike through the woods, they have to do things like Boy Scouts in the urban areas. In rural areas, they simply go into their back yard. Fishing? No problem in rural areas. How about a kid riding a motorcycle or four-wheeler, not a chance in urban areas. I grew up in a rural area and there are many advantages to living in the "country". That said, I now live in an urban area because of employment opportunities and, yes, things like major sports teams and high-speed Internet access.
If I want to provide my kids some of the experiences I knew as a kid, I have to take them somewhere and explain nature to them. This costs money. If rural people want high-speed Internet access, it too will cost money or may not be possible.
People choose to live in places based on their likes and dislikes. If you choose to live in a rural area, enjoy the many advantages and please stop asking for subsidies to bring things urban folk take for granted. Some things are only possible in high-density population centers. For instance -- TRAFFIC; if you are just dying for a TRAFFIC JAM in rural America, you're going to have to MOVE. |
|
 DooD
join:2002-02-10
Jacksonville, FL | Firstly, you live in Chesterfield - at least that's what it says under your name. You're not that far from rural area - what 20 min? 30? If you want to take your kids camping every weekend all weekend long and run around the woods, it doesn't cost you that much - travel time or money.
Now my father on the other hand, who lives in a rural area in Texas, doesn't even have a choice for decent broadband. As for dial-up, on a good day he connects at 28.8. Cable (not even TV), DSL, not even ISDN (that option is reserved for the local school only) are options. He's about to get royally screwed by satellite for a whole 768k at over $100 a month - plus equipment rental and contract.
Point is I just don't see your comparison of cost of nature exposure vs broadband all that accurate - ie saying all they have to do is pay money for it like you have to pay money to "explain nature to" your kids. |
|
