FCC: 19 Million Still Without Broadband Down From 26 Million One Year Earlier Tuesday Aug 21 2012 12:28 EDT The FCC this week announced a new FCC study (pdf) indicating that the country still has 19 million residents who are completely unable to get broadband connectivity of any kind -- including satellite broadband. Still, that total is an improvement from the 26 million without broadband from a year earlier, with the FCC attributing the difference to continued broadband rollouts and improved data collection (I'd imagine the latter was a bigger difference maker than the former). The FCC is also using the Connect America Fund ( $185 million of which is still unclaimed in phase one) to try and get companies to push broadband into what have traditionally been more rural and less profitable areas. The FCC estimates that about 23.7% of the 61 million people living in rural areas have no broadband access at their homes. |
 silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA |
silbaco
Premium Member
2012-Aug-21 10:36 am
Includes Satellite?If the FCC's only requirement is the connection must transmit 4mbps, then satellite (Exede) would be included in this number and it shouldn't be.
I am going to have to call BS on these statistics anyway though. A drop of 7 million, more than a quarter in a single year? Seems awful unlikely. Especially since every rural DSL connection I have seen activated in the last year moved less than 1.5mbps. So either they are including non-broadband connections or their "improved data collection" is the key to the major change. But if their statistics were that bad before, it seems unsafe to trust them ever again. | |
|  |  ·Verizon FiOS
|
cableties
Premium Member
2012-Aug-21 10:51 am
Re: Includes Satellite?Agree. I call BS on this too. There are MUCH more without BBand. And Eff satellite...it is cost prohibitive versus Cable/Fios/DSL. Here is perfect example of BroadBand distribution failure: comcast last mile BS. County Rt 24 in Malone/Brainardsville, NY Comcast ends line on a COUNTY Rd that has RELIABLE power (it serves to Alice Hyde Hospital). Comcast has been contact over last 8 years (annually) as to why they have not extended the feed down the county road (55mph, 2 lane rd, with large farms and rural family homes, ranches, and even double wides). I know a family that is 1 mile from the end of the feed and has to be on "dial up". Satellite (for a fixed income retiree) is overpriced ($tarts at $70/mnth and still have to deal with interference and delay, useless for VoIP/NetApps/Gaming) Irony is, Comcast pulled the cable and went a different route (off county rt 24) than feed trunk down main county rd. I see opportunity for Verizon (oh wait, cherry picking doesn't include rural Adirondacks...). Your tax dollars go where? yuuuup!  --
Splat | |
| | |  NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12 |
Re: Includes Satellite?said by cableties:... it is cost prohibitive versus Cable/Fios/DSL.
Shouldn't that be either, "Cable/Fiber/DSL", or, "Xfinity/FiOS/U-verse"? As stated, it is like writing, "Apples/Welch's/Oranges". --
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
| | | | |
to cableties
said by cableties:Agree. I call BS on this too. There are MUCH more without BBand. And Eff satellite...it is cost prohibitive versus Cable/Fios/DSL.
So you're issue isn't with the FCC report (availabilty) just the price, right? said by cableties:Here is perfect example of BroadBand distribution failure: comcast last mile BS.
County Rt 24 in Malone/Brainardsville, NY
Comcast ends line on a COUNTY Rd that has RELIABLE power (it serves to Alice Hyde Hospital).
Comcast has been contact over last 8 years (annually) as to why they have not extended the feed down the county road (55mph, 2 lane rd, with large farms and rural family homes, ranches, and even double wides).
I know a family that is 1 mile from the end of the feed and has to be on "dial up". Satellite (for a fixed income retiree) is overpriced ($tarts at $70/mnth and still have to deal with interference and delay, useless for VoIP/NetApps/Gaming)
So your issue here is with the Cable TV provider not providing cable TV right? (CATV has to provide CATV, not internet) said by cableties:Irony is, Comcast pulled the cable and went a different route (off county rt 24) than feed trunk down main county rd.
I see opportunity for Verizon (oh wait, cherry picking doesn't include rural Adirondacks...).
Your tax dollars go where? yuuuup!
What tax dollars are you referring to? Verizon MAY need to provide POTS and Comcast MAY need to provide CABLE TV. You MAY have have recourse as a customer to complain if you can't get either services, but internet access, sadly enough, MAY not be a mandate on either company (what does your public commission have to say about it?) | |
|
|  redxii
Mod
join:2001-02-26
SW Michigan
Buffalo WZR-HP-G300NH
|
to silbaco
I would be glad to even have 1.5Mbps DSL. That way I could play games, or download large files without hefty overages even if it took a while to download.
Stuck using a mobile hotspot, works OK some times of the day.
--
Moe, I need your advice… See I've got this friend named Joey Joe-Joe... Junior... Shabadoo.. | |
| | | |
to silbaco
If Satellite and/or WiMax or any other 4G/3G providers are being counted, then this report is a sham in my opinion. | |
| |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Zoom 5341J
|
KrK to silbaco
Premium Member
2012-Aug-21 10:35 pm
to silbaco
I also call BS. And there's a lot of people that get what I believe should be classified as "Better the Dial-Up, but still sucks" broadband.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
| | | |
to silbaco
Amen! There are people in Metro Denver that still have nothing but dial up or expensive sat. Heck, the FCC might as well claim every customer that can pay for a DS1 can get "broadband". Furthermore,
what is "Broadband" according to the FCC? Is broadband code for Internet Access? Then why doesn't the FCC call it what it is? I know an old telco in southern IL that was providing broadband before (91) but they weren't providing internet access to anyone.
So confusing! | |
|
 tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:7 ·Xfinity
|
tshirt
Premium Member
2012-Aug-21 10:51 am
Progress is good, almost......impressive to cover 7 million more.
We do have to recognize that the ones covered by this effort were the ones easist to connect and possible at the prices set.
each of the remaining 3 groups of 6 million, will require progressively more work at a higher price to reach.
The cost of reaching that final 1 million may be staggering, unless at some point we decide we will pay for the install on Satellite for truely remote homes and that will be good enough for now. | |
| |  ArrayListDevOps
Premium Member
join:2005-03-19
Boston, MA |
ArrayList
Premium Member
2012-Aug-21 11:17 am
Re: Progress is good, almost...most of those remote homes have electricity, right? someone paid for that to happen. | |
| | |  skeechanAi Otsukaholic
Premium Member
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 |
skeechan
Premium Member
2012-Aug-21 11:30 am
Re: Progress is good, almost...I wouldn't compare low latency high cap broadband to basic electrical service. Such service barely existed 15 years ago. You don't go from nonexistence to absolute necessity in less than two decades. You mention electricity, lots of people didn't have electricity 15 years after cities started getting it. Today, decades and decades later it is necessary for basic living. Low latency high cap broadband isn't a necessity.
If particular individuals really needs that type of broadband service (as opposed to basic connectivity with satellite) say for their job, it should have been a consideration when buying the home just as proximity to work, school, shopping and other things were considerations. Don't move next to an airport THEN complain about the noise. If you needed quiet, you shouldn't have bought next to the airport. If you needed low latency high cap service, you should have considered that along with how many bedrooms the house had.
That said, incumbents shouldn't be able to bribe legislatures to band muni deployments. Incumbents refuse to deploy and then spend millions to ensure others can't either. They feet drag long enough to get free government money while posting record profits.
If localities want low latency broadband, they should be free to put bond measures on the ballot to pay for it. Put residents in control of their infrastructure. | |
| | | |  88615298
Premium Member
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness |
88615298
Premium Member
2012-Aug-21 11:42 am
Re: Progress is good, almost...said by skeechan:I wouldn't compare low latency high cap broadband to basic electrical service. Such service barely existed 15 years ago. You don't go from nonexistence to absolute necessity in less than two decades. Says someone who HAS broadband. You mention electricity, lots of people didn't have electricity 15 years after cities started getting it. So because something took 50 years to do 100 years ago means it has to take 50 years today? Today, decades and decades later it is necessary for basic living. I can show you several hundred Amish that live near me that would disagree. Low latency high cap broadband isn't a necessity. Once again says someone that HAS this. YOU do without it for say a year and come back and tell me your opinion again. | |
| | | | | skeechanAi Otsukaholic
Premium Member
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 |
skeechan
Premium Member
2012-Aug-21 3:42 pm
Re: Progress is good, almost...You pay for it then. It is not the responsibility of Joe Taxpayer or other ratepayers to provide low latency broadband to rural residents.
If someone NEEDS low latency broadband, they should have considered that when picking a place to live...says someone who CONSIDERED THAT and paid a hefty real estate premium to get the local services I needed or wanted. | |
| | | | | | | |
Re: Progress is good, almost...Picking a place to live doesn't happen when you're born into a place. All places in this country should have opportunities. | |
| | | | | | | skeechanAi Otsukaholic
Premium Member
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 |
skeechan
Premium Member
2012-Aug-21 4:45 pm
Re: Progress is good, almost...There is no caste system in the US. No one is born, lives 80 years and dies in the same house any more and no one was or continues to be forced to. Everyone moves about at various times in the life even if in the same town.
If having low latency broadband is imperative for someone because of their work or whatever, then like EVERYONE ELSE they should pick a place to live where the service is offered.
I wanted to live where the weather was good. I wanted to live close to my job. I wanted to live hear good shops, restaurants and entertainment goings-on. I wanted to live semi-close to the freeway so my commute is a bit easier. I wanted to live in a great school district. I wanted a view lot. These are considerations I made when CHOOSING to live where I live. Today if I move, I wouldn't consider a place that doesn't have broadband, and I certainly wouldn't move there then bitch I don't have it. Again, that is like moving next to the airport and then complaining about the noise.
At my office, I'm at 19.2K cu ft and no cable. With a 3dB DSL noise margin for all intents an purposes my office is in a broadband dead zone. But instead of crying about it, I got a T1 and when I felt that it was a rip, I got Wimax service. Is it as good as the Roadrunner Business and FiOS that are literally the next block over? Of course not. But if I really want FiOS that bad, I can move.
And I don't dismiss satellite internet. I had AOL DirecPC dial-return satellite many moons ago and it worked fine. Was it as good as cable HSI or FTTH? Of course not, but it worked well for virtually everything with the exception of online games and fat uploads. On SATMEX 5 I saw 3Mb from it (with concurrent downloads).
Broadband isn't an entitlement nor should it be just like a short commute isn't an entitlement or 4 bedrooms aren't an entitlement. | |
| | | | | | | |  The Limit
Premium Member
join:2007-09-25
Greensboro, NC
kudos:2 |
Re: Progress is good, almost...I understand where you are coming from, but you left out one very important detail: money. Not everyone is rolling in the dough to make this happen. I'm not saying Joe Taxpayer should have to foot the bill, yet at the same time I would argue that the hefty taxes we are already paying be used in the development of infrastructure.
Which, of course, will never happen. Right now, as a nation, we are broke. We are still involved overseas, not to mention all over the world, and spending record amounts on defense and healthcare. Besides all of that (and disregarding it, because I don't want to turn this into a political debate even though I feel like a lot of these issues are politically induced), as Americans we pay quite a bit in taxes. I'm sure SOME of that can be repropriated for infrastructure costs.
And if we don't want the government involved, then a bill should be passed stating that muni projects SHOULDN'T be blocked by incumbents. Incumbents shouldn't have ANY say so in what the people want.
Just my two cents.
Sidenote: I'm not saying incumbents are bad, but the incumbents have forgotten the most important piece of the puzzle: customers. Sure, incumbents are in it for the money, but take care of your customers and money will never be a problem.
--
"We will evaluate these integrals rigorously if we can, and non-rigorously if we must".
---Victor Moll, invited talk, Tom Osler Fest (April 17, 2010) | |
| | | | | | | | | tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:7 ·Xfinity
|
tshirt
Premium Member
2012-Aug-21 6:06 pm
Re: Progress is good, almost...just to clarify a few of your statements, common misunderstandings
We aren't broke but we are in debt, we do spend huge amounts on OFFENCE under the DoD(which hasn't fought a defensive war for many years, plus quite a bit on Aid/market development, Also, Americans overall (paticularly those at the top) pay realitively little in taxes compared to other developed nations, we also pay less individually and in total now than any time since your grandfather was born.
But we are damn good in coming up with new MUST HAVES to spend more future income on.
We need to start paying more NOW, for things we want in the future, and livving without until we can actually afford to buy it outright.
Those are some basic things rural people/farmers KNEW until gov't offered loan guaruntes and crop insurance and stability payments, etc. It's very easy to end up owing everything to the company store. | |
| | | | | | | | | | skeechanAi Otsukaholic
Premium Member
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 |
skeechan
Premium Member
2012-Aug-21 6:20 pm
Re: Progress is good, almost...If taxpayers or ratepayers are paying for deployment then TAXPAYERS should be the ones owning it, not private corporations. If we build new federal highways, I don't want them given away to some private corporation that will charge higher and higher tolls and treat their customers like ass to keep a share price up.
If taxpayers are going to do this, it should be a "municipal information service", just like a muni water utility, owned by the taxpayers and managed by an elected body accountable to the people. It should be infrastructure built by passing a muni bond measure combined with funds from the USF.
And during the election, incumbents should know the knee breaking regulatory consequences that will result from fighting a bond measure.
Not a single dime of USF money should be going to AT&T, Verizon or any other private company, especially one that posts record profits and treats customers like ass....and breaks every promise they make when begging for the money.
Taxpayers and ratepayers aren't an ATM for Verizon and AT&T to throttle whenever they want some free money. If they don't want to deploy...fine, I get that but they should GTF out of the way and allow munis to wire themselves. | |
| | | | | | | | | |  John GaltForward, March
Premium Member
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:8 |
Re: Progress is good, almost... | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
to skeechan
Good for you and me; other people aren't as mobile. Sorry, I covered this in my previous post. Many rural people grow up and stay in their limited area, but they should still have access to basic services such as electricity and now broadband if they can pay for it. It creates more opportunities in their environment and is necessary for modern life. | |
| | | | | | | | | skeechanAi Otsukaholic
Premium Member
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 |
skeechan
Premium Member
2012-Aug-21 6:02 pm
Re: Progress is good, almost...They can get broadband, albeit sorta crappy broadband. What advocates here are talking about is low latency high cap broadband. Satellite while not awesome, provides people with basic internet services. | |
| | | | | | | | | skeechan
1 edit |
to jjeffeory
Take $100B |
How much could it possibly cost to wire the entire country...a trillion dollars? Take $100B from defense each year for 10 years. I don't believe for a second that a military that was just fine at $350B in 2000 needs $650B today (the wars were largely funded from supplementals). I have a hard time believing that spending $550B instead of $650B would decimate our ability to defend ourselves. Maybe it would give us pause before we start a 3rd. It also wouldn't cost any jobs since private companies will be the ones bidding to build it just as they're the ones building tanks, rockets and fighter jets. And that infrastructure is government owned and then private companies compete to deliver content, governed by rules of net neutrality. You don't need private roads to have a thriving taxi, limo and bus industry. In other words, if taxpayers are going to do this, then we're going all hog and will OWN it. | |
|
| | | | |
to skeechan
If you want to participate in modern society, you sure do need low latency high capacity broadband service. That's the thing about broadband, it takes away distances as a factor to commerce. Just look at what cyberspace has done for countries like India. They went from nonexistent in tech service to the major player in the world and they're the largest benefactor of broadband service in the world. We could have similar benefits for our rural citizens!  | |
| | | | | tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:7 ·Xfinity
|
tshirt
Premium Member
2012-Aug-21 5:44 pm
Re: Progress is good, almost...said by jjeffeory:If you want to participate in modern society, you sure do need low latency high capacity broadband service. That's the thing about broadband, it takes away distances as a factor to commerce. Just look at what cyberspace has done for countries like India. They went from nonexistent in tech service to the major player in the world and they're the largest benefactor of broadband service in the world. We could have similar benefits for our rural citizens!
realitively few HOMES in India are wired even for telephone and outside major cities higher speeds are rare. EVERYONE has cell phone (They are constantly talking to someone) people move to cities in tech areas go to ENGLISH and computer tech schools and work within large call centers, personal surfing is more often done by phone or at internet cafes until you reach a higher pay grades. same thing with other manufactering advances there, MOST of the investment in tech was by private companies who by only what they need for the factory. as demand and education has risen so (slowly) are wages within the those cities else where much of the population is still desperately poor, so internet lag and gaming is not important. People in out lying areas any where in the world are disadvantaged by the lack of CITY services but often enjoy other benefits in return. there is no cheap/ easy/ affordable/practical way to rapidly change that. some of us out in the sticks are happy that the stuff city people think they need to survive is difficult to get out here as we don't want their noisy, nosy, stinky, asses out here anyway. | |
| | | | | | | |
n1581j
Anon
2012-Aug-22 5:30 pm
Re: Progress is good, almost...Oh how wrong you are.
India, is in many rural areas far better than the US with fiber. If one is a traveler like me, who has Sat in the States, Sat/Wireless in Aus, soon to be fiber, DSL in Europe I can compare across continents and say that India is the best, fastest out of all at present. Even small outlaying communities in Africa are running fiber, and this where only a fraction of the houses have power, it works out cheaper than copper and I have to ask why other than labor | |
|
| | | ArrayListDevOps
Premium Member
join:2005-03-19
Boston, MA ·RCN
|
to skeechan
all of what you said is true. It took many years to get electric service out in the boonies. It can take just as long for broadband. We just need to make a plan to get it out there. I don't care if it take 20 years. Lets at least make a plan to get it going and not just leave it. | |
|
| 88615298
Premium Member
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness |
to tshirt
said by tshirt:...impressive to cover 7 million more.
We do have to recognize that the ones covered by this effort were the ones easist to connect and possible at the prices set.
each of the remaining 3 groups of 6 million, will require progressively more work at a higher price to reach.
The cost of reaching that final 1 million may be staggering, unless at some point we decide we will pay for the install on Satellite for truely remote homes and that will be good enough for now.
Says you who has broadband. I love how some of the haves tell the have nots what's "good enough" for them. | |
| | | tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:7 ·Xfinity
1 edit |
tshirt
Premium Member
2012-Aug-21 1:32 pm
Re: Progress is good, almost...I'm not saying forever, I saying Satellite is a quick fix and eventually higher speeds as greater population density will make it more practical.
Suppose that the last group of 6 million average $50k per install (some FCC staff voice this concern/guesstimate) and suppose the very last million are like some guys in a cabins 200 miles for nowhere (but not near each other) Alaska) which could cost millions to install and maintain even if he doesn't want or use it (some people move to the ends of the earth to get away from it all) At some point we have to say, "That is currently impractical, and the public/rest of the rate payers cannot be expected to subsidize it."
I think a reasonable effort to provide ACCESS to basic broadband (enough to use gov't and educational websites, email, job apps etc.) MIGHT be partially public responsiblity.
I don't think low latentcy gaming, or massive bandwidth for filesharing is or should be a federal priority for subsidy.
Yes I have broadband now, but I started with 300 baud modems and moved up over thr years through satellite and DSL and now Cable and if a fiber or LTE option was available I would consider it v.s. what I have now, but I don't expect others to subsidize my upgrade or anyone elses beyond really basic service WHERE PRACTICAL. | |
| | | jeddak
join:2001-12-28
Visalia, CA |
to 88615298
>I love how some of the haves tell the have nots what's "good enough" for them.
Hear, hear! Amen, bro'.
--
_Jed_ | |
|
| | |
Amy123 to tshirt
Anon
2012-Aug-21 11:52 am
to tshirt
They changed the data that they based the report on. So it's not comparing apples to apples. | |
| | KearnstdSpace Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:2 |
to tshirt
the government is who pushed electrical lines out to rural areas. If it was not for the TVA and the Rural Electrification Act I bet many areas still would not have it.
Broadband is the same issue, the incumbents claim it is not profitable to wire up these people just as the power companies claimed all those years ago. Except now the telcos and cable companies will fight in court over government deployments, I bet that bullshit did not happen with the TVA, Then again back then the government would have told them to shut up and ignored the courts because they where the federal government.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| | | |
to tshirt
said by tshirt:...impressive to cover 7 million more.
We do have to recognize that the ones covered by this effort were the ones easist to connect and possible at the prices set.
each of the remaining 3 groups of 6 million, will require progressively more work at a higher price to reach.
The cost of reaching that final 1 million may be staggering, unless at some point we decide we will pay for the install on Satellite for truely remote homes and that will be good enough for now.
You are trusting the stats are correct, right? Are these government reports? Are they dependent on industry reporting or some third party reporting? | |
|
| |
QuestionsCould someone give the URL to the report (not to a paraphrase of a press release)? Why doesn't Karl understand the people here would like to see the details?
I think 1.5 megabits per second is a more appropriate level--standard DSL--you can do reasonable web browsing at this speed.
The big problem is at dialup speed.
I disagree that satellite should be included. But if you include satellite why the lack of coverage for millions? Doesn't satellite cover the whole country? | |
| | |
Yes!More internet congestion for everyone. | |
| | silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA |
silbaco
Premium Member
2012-Aug-21 11:41 am
Re: Yes!said by brianiscool:More internet congestion for everyone.
And how is that? | |
|
Skipig
join:2011-11-22
Parker, CO |
Skipig
Member
2012-Aug-21 11:50 am
SatelliteYou guys drive me batty. You should refer to yourselves as the 3%. The 3% that hogs 50% of all bandwidth. Enough is never enough! Satellite delivers 12Mbps almost everywhere. Yes, I know, there are data caps. But, that's the nature of the technology and no different than LTE Advanced. You can now get satellite for under $50 (the same as a Verizon LTE MiFi), but with four times the data caps. As a taxpayer, I don't particularly want to fund those of you who live on the edge of the grid and demand fiber or coax so you can choose to watch NetFlix to save yourselves a few sheckels. | |
| |
••••• | | |
The BIGGEST Problem......is caused by the existing ISP's and the FCC.
As someone who FINALLY saw deployment of DSL last October, I struggled with satellite and then used Alltel. When I heard Alltel was about to be swallowed by Verizon Wireless I knew it would go poorly for those of us with Alltel FOR. A. REASON. They had great service, their online portal was easy to navigate and I was getting a terrific 2.8-3.2Mbps with an aircard and a truly unlimited account. When the Borg took over, that came to an aggravating end. I dealt with 40Kb speeds until Frontier finally used the nice, fat FIOS cable beneath our main street and brought through DSL. Now if I could just persuade them to update the equipment at CO so I could get 6-8Mb down...!
I agree completely that satellite should NOT be included in this study. Obscenely low caps are NOT acceptable for home service (this means you too, VZW LTE), especially if you have kids that need to do homework or take an online class for college credit. I could have dealt with the slow download speed, but the high latency and having to be a damned FAP cop was just sick. The price is high -- over $70/month -- but that wouldn't have been an issue if the service hadn't been so poor, and THEN they lopped 25% off of caps because they oversold the beam.
I understand the geographic problems and why some homes will have an extremely hard time getting broadband. Going through mountains has to be tricky, and living to the north of a peak that blocks a southern satellite is most inconvenient. Still, there's no way my community should've waited so long for DSL given the high numbers of U of Michigan employees that live here.
As to how they figure availability...nearby Chelsea, a rather upscale town, is surrounded by very affluent homes where the cable stops 500 ft. away. There must be *thousands* of these neighborhoods that aren't being served who would gladly pay money for it, but the regional monopoly doesn't think it's worth it to extend when they can just jack up prices on existing customers. When the Connect America technical expert paid me a visit, he said there are so many of these types of situations and they're being completely dissed by cable.
Sorry for the long post, but this has been a pet soapbox for 6 years. Even though I have access I am painfully aware of the frustrations thousands of others feel, and those who can't use the internet like the rest of the civilized world because of stingy caps at home. I really wish there was something I could do to help other than being a loud voice in a small room. | |
|  ·ooma
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
|
tmc8080
Member
2012-Aug-21 12:56 pm
parse..if you consider a stricter definition of broadband "in the home" you have to remove cellco wireless broadband from that broader definition, when you do that, not much has changed over the last 4 years.. the number is probably around 1 million more homes serviceable rather than 7 million. | |
| | |
Satellite should not count.Satellite service is cheating... Not really all that useful for more than light users.  I know, it's better than dial-up (marginally), but there are too many restrictions. This will be true for LTE to a lesser extent due to the pretty low caps. We really need a national broadband infrastructure in place for 95% of the country, much like power service, and deploy LTE only to the last 5%. | |
| |
••••
| | |
|
How about .. |
·
·
·
