| Why aren't they looking at wireless? Leave the TV to AT&T/Dish/DiectTV and why not use wireless for access? I gave up on our telco and AT&T doing any upgrade and found a wireless provider that gives great service and speeds. They could set up internet access fairly cheap using city facilities, such as water towers, and do it quickly.
As for rural why not use wireless there also? I know it wouldn't be good for all places but in the midwestern states which are mostly flat I would think that would be a solution that has a good ROI. |
| I agree with this, but most buisnesses want higher bandwidth than wireless can buck up for..I too have 2 choices for broadband at home, both Wireless which has a $600 setup fee and $50 a month. as far as I know from people who have the service it is very good.. but there are distance limitations just as with DSL and some cable ISP's because it is cheaper to do wireless, running any type of digital line costs a LOT of money. Just to have someone install 300ft of CAT5 cable can cost upwards of $200 here... and when we installed Fiber optic cable between the three local schools it cost upwards of $14,000 even though we had it done by army contractors for the MSLN project in Maine. both of the schools are within a quarter mile radius of each other. I do like this plan because this would mean city run internet without the limitations put on it by ISP's unless you split the residential and buisness lines...splitting them (separate networks) raises prices. As far as I know no-one wants a service that is too high priced for it's usefulness.... |
