| 11% rural - no broadband because unavailable to them That doesn't sound all that bad. So all this gov't money that may or may not be spent on pushing broadband to rural users may be overplayed and may need very little additional funding.
What may be needed based on this survey is a sales pitch to convince people they need broadband and what all the benefits can be. That would be a much less costly endeavor. |
|
| What it says is we need more competition in the market to drive down cost.
Of those rural people, did they consider satellite as a broadband source and then considered it too expensive? If so, then pushing broadband out does make sense... again competition. |
|
| "What it says is we need more competition in the market to drive down cost."
I would like to see a copy of the questions asked. Some of these poles have questions that can skew the results to meet the agenda of the pollster. |
|
| reply to Uncle Paul
This means we need to use more of my tax money to get this number to 100%. Perhaps 105% |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:That doesn't sound all that bad. Yeah unless you're one of the 11%. I think it higher than that. In my county it's closer to 60%. Also many people may be counting satellite or cell phone internet as broadband when we all know they don't count. Also mnay of those that say they don't want it may live in areas where they can't get it anyways. The REAL number of Americans that live in areas where no REAL broadband is available is closer to 20% or higher. |
|
| said by BF69:The REAL number of Americans that live in areas where no REAL broadband is available is closer to 20% or higher. I'll stick to the Census Bureau report until you can show the results of your own poll that contacted 55,000 people. |
|
Reviews:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
While good, I really hope Verizon's LTE and other 4G connections can offer people DSL like speeds and decent latencies. Sadly this is there only hope as DSL copper will not be put in, and fiber as well due to the costs and it generally being overkill. |
|
 DrModemPremium
join:2006-10-19
USA
kudos:1
1 edit | reply to Uncle Paul
said by Uncle Paul:Of those rural people, did they consider satellite as a broadband source Obviously you don't know what satellite is since you classed it as "broadband".
"A service inferior to dialup with the bonus of getting blocked by clouds, planes and assorted random bluejays" would be more like it. |
|
| said by DrModem:said by Uncle Paul:Of those rural people, did they consider satellite as a broadband source Obviously you don't know what satellite is since you classed it as "broadband". "A service inferior to dialup with the bonus of getting blocked by clouds, planes and assorted random bluejays" would be more like it. Actually, I'm not sure if the definition of record says anything about quality of connection or latency. My comment wasn't about my understanding of broadband, but the person in rural America's answers to the questions. |
|
 VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | reply to Uncle Paul
Amen. But the big companies will do their best to make sure that NEVER happens. Should be illegal to lock out competition, imo, completely |
|
 FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19
 ·Comcast
 ·T-Mobile US
·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to dfs8jkasdf
said by dfs8jkasdf :
This means we need to use more of my tax money to get this number to 1000%. Perhaps 1050%
fixed it for ya
--
sbcglobal.net speedtest result 11/11/09 - 5256kbps |
|
|
|
