zeze
@sbcglobal.net
| Cities
Maybe I'm missing something here, but there's seems to be a continuous pattern I've seen involving cities: All of them seem to be the most behind when it comes to broadband and broadband options, specifically at the residential level. Boston has nothing but cable (unless you go far to the west in Brighton, or south to Hyde Park), Chicago has a few options but nothing spectacular (no Fiber, VDSL2), and every city I've looked to moving to has very few options in terms of broadband access unless you head to the suburbs (note: I rely heavily on public transit, so unless it's someplace like DC, no dice). Now, all I'm asking is: Why is this the case? Is it the cities? Is it the ISPs? What am I missing?  |
|
tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
 ·Hollis Hosting
 ·Verizon Online DSL
·Fairpoint Communic..
| US does not have national broadband policy. Individual companies make business decisions about rolling out high speed Internet access. In general cities get wired first as population density make it more profitable then rural areas.
I'm surprised DSL is not available in Boston and Chicago. Verizon has been aggressive in rolling out FIOS FTTP in its territories.
/tom |
|
zeze
@sbcglobal.net
| I wasn't saying that Chicago didn't have DSL available (in fact, I'm using it right now), they just don't have U-Verse (which is basically VDSL2) or fiber. Also, it seems like it's a suburbs-first policy rather than a cities-first or balanced approach when it comes to deployment. For example, my mother lives in a suburb of Providence, RI, and has FiOS, but my friends in Providence can't get it. Also, looking at the map, practically every city/town just outside of D.C. has FiOS, but D.C. itself does not. That's what I don't understand. |
|
