how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
373 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 DoctorDoomTroll hunterPremium
join:2006-09-19
Becket, MA | Facts of life for rural BB One factor that renders America fundamentally different from the countries cited is that the USofA has a helluva lot more rural area than those countries.
Time for some number-crunching.
• According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the resident population of the United States, projected to 01/23/09 at 02:01 GMT (EST+5) is 305,666,578. The area of the USofA is 9,631,420 sq km (3,718,712 sq mi). Therefore its population density is about 82 people per square mile.
• In 2000, 79.2% of the US population was in urban areas ( »www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census/cps2k.htm ). Thus 20.8% of the US population is spread out in 94.6% of the US that is classified as rural ( »www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=12402 ).
• 3,718,712 x 94.6 = 3,517,902 square miles that are rural
• 305,666,578 x 20.8% = about 63,579,000 people in 94.6% of the US.
• The rural population density is thus about 18 people per square mile.
Since the 18/mi² are certain to be in families, reducing the number of potential customers, what incentive is there to hardwire that 94.6% of America for broadband? | |
Reviews:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| The numbers may very well point out that a lot of people live in rural areas but those same peoplehave a vested interst in the very same infrastructure that the Cable companies use to string their wire. They have a vested interest in the poles sititing in publlic right of way that these cable companies use to hang their wire or bury their cables. Telling a lot of peole that because they don't live in a densely populated area means they don't get the same rightss and benefits of the urban dwellers is a bit hard to swallow. I guesss their taxes aren't as important and carry as much weight as those paid by the city dwellers.
Yes its financially impractical to hardwire the vast stretches of the United States but the utlity companies sucked it up and strung electrical, telephone wires were strung for telephones and no one went broke. What is happening here is maximizing profit by cherry-picking those areas that return the most money per dollar investment then telling the states, cities, counties that they can't afford to serve all the people but they want their subsidies, their right to access of public property their exclusive monolpoly contracts etc. If cable is NOT a utility then I say they have no right to public right of way because its not a necessity and they should pay for using public property. I ramble on so I'll shut up! | |
|
