Broadband Coverage Gaps Remain a Problem

The government allocated $7.2 billion to rural broadband development. In reality how many more people were actually given internet...especially internet with decent speeds. This is actually a prime example at why the government shouldn't blindly throw money at something and expect it to work.

Competition would be fantastic, but a lot of areas would be happy with a duopoly, which as we all know still doesn't save the customer anything.

I have several family members who live in the country and are using a local WISP. I have basically told all of them that once Verizon offers LTE service here that they should all switch. It will be slightly more expensive and there are caps, but it will be more reliable and they won't have 2 week outages like their current WISP.

$7.2 billion is a drop in the bucket. A few years ago it was estimated that $200 billion would be needed to provide 99% coverage. And in the end much to a chagrin of neo-cons it's going to take the government doing it. It's going to take an effort similar to the building of the interstate highway system or the electrification projects of the 1930's, 40's and 50's.

The days of thinking of the internet as a luxury is over. Every house has access to electricity so every house should have access to internet. And no that doesn't mean free internet. It means ACCESS as in the ability to get service if one chooses to pay for it.

Three things:

Competition, Competition and Competition

Things that major ISP's want NOTHING to do with

It is expensive to extend lines or build out DSL infrastructure where homes are farther apart. So why shouldn't we, the homeowners, share in the cost, since we will be the ones who benefit?

I hear potential costs of $1500-2000 per home. Is that really excessive? The resale value of our homes would increase by at least that much.

Homeowners are often asked to share in the cost of capital improvements, such as sewers or water systems. Why couldn't the cost of cable line extension be amortized over 10 years or more? Perhaps service expansion districts could be created in which Cable or DSL service would be higher until the infrastructure was paid off.

Many of us are not just expecting the government to pay for this service. We are willing to pay for it ourselves, but it's not for sale to us. There seems to be one price for DSL, for example. If Verizon can't deliver the service for that low price, then it just can't be had for any amount. This seems odd to me. Imagine if all of the products and services we use were priced like that.

I live a mile from the last DSL line, and three miles from cable. I rely on satellite now. It's true that it is improving, but still is capped. Streaming movies and online backup are not for us.

Companies are getting laws written to prevent small towns (and big cities) from offering municipal ISP service, even when they provide no service of their own.

I've been living in that Gap my entire life - I live in a area that isn't served by cable, DSL or FiOS. Cable stops 4 miles short, FiOS stops 2 miles short and DSL is a half mile away. My only solution is 3G which isn't a reasonable solution when you have 2 adults who work from home and 3 kids that depend on the internet for school. I'm using a Verizon currently with 2 MiFi devices and both on a 10G cap. It's ridiculous in this day and age that we still can't get a viable option for broadband. What's more ridiculous is we waste $300m on a worthless map. When will they ever get it right?

I know what we need. Let's get these people involved in the actual build out. They've shown exactly how good they are at getting things done. Now all we need is some more bureaucrats to get the physical plant installed. That will solve all of our problems!



/sarcasm>


I live in the middle of this situation. The government "stimulus" is a waste of taxpayer money. Yes, it provides a cheap way to get 1Mbps service at $39.95. But, for $100 up front and $60 a month, you can now get 12Mbps/3Mbps in most of rural America from DISH, ViaSat, and the NRTC members. Hughes will soon add to that supply. I can only get 7Mbps at my home in suburbia. So, this is very good speed and a snappy service acording to Engadget and others. True, there are caps. But, a descent argument can be made that with a little restraint and use of a DVR and a service like Blockbuster or NetFlix, the caps are sufficient (note, some will immediately fire back that this isn't true--which my research suggests is simply whining by those who are looking for the government to pay for their unlimited appetites--a bad idea at best). Anyone living off the grid should consider these alternatives.

i had satelite internet on my farm in western wisconsin with the fastest plan wild blue (viasat) i had to pay for the dish and set up all told about $400 got less than 1 mbs during primetime and got 800 -1600 ms latency on good days, i vould not do any voip, streaming of ANYTHING , coulnt play any games online, there was a huge delay for every page download. Our Hughesnet experience wasnt much better. i got lucky and century link now provides 785kps extended dsl service to our farm and we regularly get 500kps and at 500kps dsl service we get massivly better service than the much faster satelite services. anybody who advocates satelite internet as viable is crazy.

Ugh.. Satellite? Really?

Sat is my LAST resort. Even then, I'd find a way to get better internet (looks at the WRT54G's).