Given the complaints we read here about service levels, going from 1.5M DSL or no DSL to 6M or more via LTE would absolutely be an upgrade.
Its also more competitive. Its a lot easier for another carrier to enter the fray.
and yet theirs the problem, AT&T and Verizon wont compete to give the rural areas the right amount of data they need for the right price.. look if you think 10 gigs is what a rural family should have at the price of 300 or more then maybe you should pay that and see how it works out.. People need way more than that..roughly 50 gigs min 100 is generous 250 is perfect.. sure im not talkin about Netflix or anything like that just being able to use a fast wireless connection for school or whatever.. 10 gigs can be blown threw fast, heck maybe someone might come in and get a contract with AT&T to provide data service to rural areas.. but I doubt it
Sorry, but you'll never convince me that we need to subsidize broadband so rural folks can watch streaming video - and besides, that's an issue for Netflix to attack, not the government.
Homework doesn't have to require broadband, and any seasoned educator knows that; but I will stipulate that the potential of the virtual classroom is the "killer app" that would convince most conservatives to support communal broadband expansion - in exchange for school choice.
The initial offerings for LTE aren't as generous as I'd like them to be, but that's what will entice a second player to the market, and rates will come down over time.
So they can't keep Dsl around in an lte target area because it may be a threat, i assume. Yet they want to pull it. That will be the end. I want ever use that crap. Isn't this over there near the google fiber thing.
Lte is a cheap alternative, maybe an upgrade from a 3G network.