dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
8
share rss forum feed

simpsomatt

join:2006-08-21
Paris, KY
reply to northalabama

Re: [Availability] 10 years later, still no DSL from AT&T availa

said by northalabama:

Reliable, fast, and reasonably priced internet should be available to all.

Using whose definition of "Reliable, fast, and reasonably priced"?

As PX Eliezer points out, the FCC is taking steps to improve the availability of broadband service that comes close to meeting a reasonable definition of those qualities. One thing that gets ignored is quantity. It seems likely that any broadband service that gets extended to currently unserved areas will be wireless. With LTE being rolled out in the near future, the service will probably be sufficient. But it seems likely that it will be subject to the same kind of caps as existing 3G plans, 5 or 10 GB/month. That's a little inconvenient. I guess if you consider the cost per GB compared to DSL/cable/fiber/whatever, it may not be reasonably priced.


northalabama

join:2001-06-18
Huntsville, AL
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·Comcast

The comments were for DSL, not wireless, they are different services. And if the future is only wireless, heaven help us all. If you think phone companies complain about the cost of hard wire services, just listen to them talk about the expense of wireless for a little while! Aren't there still issues about cell phone coverage, too???

And who's definition of "reliable, fast, and reasonably priced"? How 'bout this little thing called an average...


simpsomatt

join:2006-08-21
Paris, KY

I'm aware that DSL and wireless are different services. My point was that, while the FCC is pushing "universal broadband", they're not pushing any specific way of delivering the service. And "mobile broadband" is getting a lot more hype than DSL. So areas that don't currently have any form of hardwired broadband service are not likely to get anything better than a wireless solution. There are still issues about cell phone coverage in some areas, but IMO you're going to see cell phone coverage improved in the weak areas as a result of the universal broadband push. As far as the cost, companies are covering areas with 3G that they don't reach with wires, so the cost must be OK with them. Maybe that's just because they can get away with charging $60/month for 5 GB. It may suck, but as far as I can see, that's the future for a lot of us in the boonies.


WhatNow
Premium
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable

If you are not served by cable or DSL now then you will see service from broadband before you will from DSL. The speeds will be much faster then DSL. The only problem is the caps. Who knows they may offer a point to point connection with an antenna at your home which cuts out the expense and limitations or the wire connection.

If you don't have internet now why turn down wireless broadband.



Hayward
K A R - 1 2 0 C
Premium
join:2000-07-13
Key West, FL
kudos:1
reply to northalabama

said by northalabama:

The comments were for DSL, not wireless, they are different services. And if the future is only wireless, heaven help us all. If you think phone companies complain about the cost of hard wire services, just listen to them talk about the expense of wireless for a little while! Aren't there still issues about cell phone coverage, too???

Wireless internet and cell data are two completely different things.

There are many dedicated wireless internet companies out in rural areas that have nothing to do with any cell carriers.
--



northalabama

join:2001-06-18
Huntsville, AL
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·Comcast

True statement. Can you name the ones that are not affiliated with telcos or wireless carriers?

I couldn't. So, here they are, the top 7 in the US, listed with and based on coverage (number of access points):

1. El Segundo, CA, Infonet Services Company, 12,000
2. Chicago, IL, Hyatt International, 11,000
3. Bellevue, WA, T-Mobile, 4,200
4. Waltham, MA, Airpath, 3,504
5. Austin, TX, Wayport (now at&t), 3,000
6. San Antonio, TX, SBC Freedom Link (also at&t), 2,300
7. New Plymouth, ID, Truckstop.net, 429

Three of the top seven are run by telcos. Now look at the coverage, since that's the topic of conversation. The top two have international coverage, so that accounts for their having an overwhelming majority of access points. See how the number drops from the top two to number three? So, who's on top domestically? at&t and T-Mobile.

The others may be viable options in a few years, but this discussion was based to today's coverage in rural areas, and how to provide service to the areas currently without access. I hope non telco related wi-fi carriers do better in providing service to rural areas, but it doesn't seem they are any more interested.
--
The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you. - David Foster Wallace



Hayward
K A R - 1 2 0 C
Premium
join:2000-07-13
Key West, FL
kudos:1

4 edits

The point really was meant to be (never investigated the ownerships) they are direct internet not 3 or 4g adjuncts to cell phone service most with major limitations.

Those might be the top ten, but note they are not in rural areas.
In fact I am amazed there would be those numbers in places it is totally unnecessary.

WiFi is not about numbers but serving people as efficiently and lower cost than widely spread wire infrastructure would allow.

There are hundreds of others, that are and while might get their connection from telco's are independently owned. Even heard of a few that are actually COOP's or municipally run.

The limitation to WiFi is topography. Works very efficiently in flat areas like Kansas where it might be a mile neighbor to next, but very problematic in hill/mt areas like rural NE... requiring many more towers and infrastructure, and where sat is still best/only option if you have the line of sight and mt not in the way.

And WiFi is still a limited SHARED resource.... while providing casual broadband speed and much lower latency than sat, it still can't be realistically expected to support every user video streaming or downloading non stop... unless the users want to pay the price of the added capacity and infrastructure.
--



septcasey

join:2006-09-07
United State
reply to simpsomatt

said by simpsomatt:

said by northalabama:

Reliable, fast, and reasonably priced internet should be available to all.

Using whose definition of "Reliable, fast, and reasonably priced"?

I don't know. How about the people who live paycheck to paycheck? But we are just peasants in the eyes of our government, so it feels like.