| | I think even that number is low. Based on my own experiences, I suspect there are quite a bit more than 24 million without broadband access in the U. S. Unless they're counting satellite access or $60 per month mobile broadband with a 5GB cap. | |
|
 cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX | Re: I think even that number is low. said by bransby:Based on my own experiences, I suspect there are quite a bit more than 24 million without broadband access in the U. S. Unless they're counting satellite access or $60 per month mobile broadband with a 5GB cap. I dont know if they count it or not. But is should be counted. Wireless is the best option for rural areas with low population density. Finally convinced by my parented to get a wireless service for $60 a month and they lover it. They easily live under the 5 gig cap. | |
|
 | decifal
join:2007-03-10
Bon Aqua, TN
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·Verizon Broadban..
| Re: I think even that number is low. said by cwh:said by bransby:Based on my own experiences, I suspect there are quite a bit more than 24 million without broadband access in the U. S. Unless they're counting satellite access or $60 per month mobile broadband with a 5GB cap. I dont know if they count it or not. But is should be counted. Wireless is the best option for rural areas with low population density. Finally convinced by my parented to get a wireless service for $60 a month and they lover it. They easily live under the 5 gig cap. yeah thats your freaking parents. Some of us would like to experience netflix's streaming video service or god forbid purchase software over the internet and actually download it within the evening! | |
|
| | cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX | Re: I think even that number is low. said by decifal:said by cwh:said by bransby:Based on my own experiences, I suspect there are quite a bit more than 24 million without broadband access in the U. S. Unless they're counting satellite access or $60 per month mobile broadband with a 5GB cap. I dont know if they count it or not. But is should be counted. Wireless is the best option for rural areas with low population density. Finally convinced by my parented to get a wireless service for $60 a month and they lover it. They easily live under the 5 gig cap. yeah thats your freaking parents. Some of us would like to experience netflix's streaming video service or god forbid purchase software over the internet and actually download it within the evening! Either way it is a huge step forward over dialup and not a great deal more expensive than 2nd line+dialup.
It would drive you nuts to live were they do, as there is buried fiber that runs in front of their house. | |
|
| | | decifal
join:2007-03-10
Bon Aqua, TN
kudos:1 | Re: I think even that number is low. Would you like a picture of the fiber that runs directly past my drive way that serves my remote terminal?  I have fiber taunting me too... I know about being driven nuts | |
|
| | | YOU "live easily" under a 5 gig cap. It may work great for singles or even couples, but I have two teenagers. With Wildblue's FAP I had a full-time job monitoring the meter, unplugging the modem and/or the router, nagging about not downloading or using Youtube, stomping out ads, blocking emails with attachments, etc. It's a full time, unpaid and unwanted job.
I will hang onto my uncapped aircard as long as I can. Hopefully LTE will come through sooner rather than later. | |
|
| | | Unfortunately there are those of us who live in rural areas not by choice, but because we cannot afford to live in the more populated areas. That aside, a 5 gig cap is not nearly enough for a household of 6, of which 4 are school aged children who need the internet to do much of the research needed to complete their school assignments. I would take them to the library, but the branch closest to my home (8 miles) has very limited hours (and none of them evening hours), and the main branch is almost 20 miles away. | |
|
|
|
