|reply to tshirt |
Re: This is actually really interesting
said by tshirt:Broadband definition is very loose with no real consensus in industry or government as to what is or isn't broadband. It's still a moving target depending on who's talking. said by birdfeedr:
Not counting satellite as broadband.
Why not? it meets the 1Mbps download requirement.
Cost and technical limitations put satellite internet into the category of last ditch methods. There's a reason it isn't more widely adopted.
That said, a friend of mine on Block Island can't get any of the more common providers, and it appears his only option is satellite. Too far for DSL, his house has bad cell phone reception, and the Block Island cable company relinquished its license to operate (a couple of years ago I think), and I don't think they ever expanded beyond 40 channels of SD or into HSI.
Not counting satellite as broadband is a subjective opinion mostly based on the least feasible method I'd use.
So I should modify my statement. It's safe to say most people in RI can get non-satellite broadband.
I was speaking of finland, where the population in the northern 40 % is under 7 per Sq mi.
This law only guaruntees 1 Mbps ACCESS/availability by 2015, doesn't say it needs to be low latentcy or cheap. (if you live 50 klicks for "1000 miles from nowhere" (Northing finland qualifies) AND you insist on your right of access, then satellites costs /latentcies/ and outages are reasonable. )