dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
Study: Rural Broadband In Serious Trouble
And It's Not Getting Better Anytime Soon
by Karl Bode 09:28AM Tuesday Oct 16 2012
A new report by the Hudson Institute (pdf) declares that the United States is facing a growing broadband gap when it comes to rural markets, and that improving these markets would improve the economic health of the country as a whole. Study author Hanss Kuttner seems to be understating the problem; Kuttner's study correctly notes that few rural users can get anything more than 3 Mbps down and 768 kbps up, but he fails to note that things are getting worse as companies like Verizon hang up on DSL creating a larger cable monopoly.

Click for full size
The study goes to great lengths to highlight the obvious: while not a magic bullet, improved broadband infrastructure leads to improved medical care, increased opportunities, stronger businesses and a healthier economy. The study's conclusion is somewhat dire:
quote:
In short, rural America stands at a precipice. A growing technology gap looms. Without broader access to broadband capacity, rural America will lack one of the necessary tools to contain, if not narrow, the gap. Such a gap will mean a loss of opportunities for those who live where technology is used less and a loss of economic potential for those who make the products and services that would close the gap. Because communication technology continues to advance, the gap can only grow unless investment continues in the places where the capabilities are furthest behind.
That's not happening because there's a slower rate of investment return in rural areas, and curiously the study offers absolutely no suggestions how to remedy the problem. It's important to note it's not just rural areas. There are hundreds of small to mid-sized U.S. cities (Binghamton, New York is a prime example) that are being left behind because there's not enough competition to spur improvements, and investors lack the patience to wait for long-term returns. The result is slow, over-priced cable versus slow, overpriced DSL.

The reality is it's going to get worse before it gets better.

The press and government have failed to notice companies like AT&T and Verizon are letting unwanted DSL users flee to cable, empowering a new, bolder cable monopoly. Regulators have given up on wireline and now place all their hopes on wireless broadband -- which may be an egregious error. As phone companies work to escape DSL and POTS obligations and lobby to eliminate all wireline regulations (after getting billions in subsidies to deploy them), the wireless services that regulators hope will fill in all the gaps will likely be leaving massive new coverage gaps in a country where most people believe we're actually eliminating them.

view:
topics flat nest 

battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000

Simple Solution

Give WISPs what they need. The need spectrum and decent power to overcome line of sight problems.

Then prevent AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, etc from obtaining this spectrum so they can't squat on it.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company.

88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

Re: Simple Solution

said by battleop:

Give WISPs what they need. The need spectrum and decent power to overcome line of sight problems.

Then prevent AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, etc from obtaining this spectrum so they can't squat on it.

Give? more free government handouts? There aren't any WISP near me so how does you solution help people in my area that can't get cable DSL?

Also the only ones that were squatting on spectrum were the cable companies. The finally sold that to Verizon which will actually use it.

RR Conductor
NWP RR Inc.,serving NW CA
Premium
join:2002-04-02
Redwood Valley, CA
kudos:1

1 recommendation

Re: Simple Solution

said by 88615298:

said by battleop:

Give WISPs what they need. The need spectrum and decent power to overcome line of sight problems.

Then prevent AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, etc from obtaining this spectrum so they can't squat on it.

Give? more free government handouts?

Yeah, you know, to actually help the nation prosper, as opposed to free trillions to countries that don't even want us there, or money to the elite to make them even more elite.
--
»www.amtrak.com
»www.freightrailworks.org
»www.isu.edu
»www.nwprr.net
»www.amtrakcalifornia.com
»www.cahighspeedrail.gov

88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

Re: Simple Solution

said by RR Conductor:

said by 88615298:

said by battleop:

Give WISPs what they need. The need spectrum and decent power to overcome line of sight problems.

Then prevent AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, etc from obtaining this spectrum so they can't squat on it.

Give? more free government handouts?

Yeah, you know, to actually help the nation prosper, as opposed to free trillions to countries that don't even want us there, or money to the elite to make them even more elite.

But why just WISPs as battleop states? Isn't that the government picking winners and losers?
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2

Re: Simple Solution

Well who are the winners and losers? Are the cell companies 'winners' simply because they had the money to bid on their spectrum? Being rich doesn't mean you have the best plan... only that you squeeze the most out of your customers.

I wouldn't have a problem loaning spectrum to WISPs with the agreement that they make certain progress within a given time frame or lose the spectrum to someone else.

battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000
If you open up spectrum that's for WISP only use, that has enough bandwidth, power, and the ability to penetrate trees and other things that hinder LOS you will see an explosion of small WISPs serving areas that can't be served.

The way things are today it's not possible for the small player to deploy LTE, 4G, or any other fancy trade name, networks to supply higher bandwidth to rural America. As long as the FCC panders to the multi billion dollar plus providers you will see them to continue to not give a shit about rural America.

Give the WISP (A.K.A.) small business the resources and they will bring you bandwidth.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company.
silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA

Re: Simple Solution

I have to agree. I think resources should be either given with specific requirements or loaned to small companies. Not necessarily just WISPs though. I think most rural telco cooperatives can and are willing to provide service with the best interests of the people they serve in mind, but they simply don't have the capital to do so.

As I have said before, my rural telco cooperative is deploying fiber to all their customers because they received a loan. They are deploying fiber in towns and on gravel roads with only 2-3 houses. It is not that they have been unwilling to serve their most rural customers, they simply have not had the resources.

88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
I also might add that both Hughesnet and Wildblue now offer speeds in the 10-15 Mbps range and Verizon has HomeFusion which runs on 4G which offer speeds of 12 Mbps download 5 Mbps upload. So rural people do have these options. Yes they are expensive, yes they have cruddy caps. The article implies rural people have ZERO options. They do have options they are just lousy.

fuziwuzi
Not born yesterday
Premium
join:2005-07-01
Atlanta, GA

Re: Simple Solution

My parents (in rural south-central Virginia) have only two options: satellite or incredibly slow DSL (1Mbps down/128kbps up). The DSL is wildly unreliable, with downtime of nearly 50%. Satellite is simply ludicrous with the price and caps. The DSL is a recent addition, only in the last year. Before it, the only option was dial-up and because of the type of phone system, that was limited to a maximum of 24kbps connection. Needless to say, not many people in that area even bother having internet service. There is no WISP, no Verizon, no cable (not even cable TV available).
--
Teabaggers: Destroying America is Priority #1
pandora
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:2
Reviews:
·ooma
·Google Voice
·Comcast
·Future Nine Corp..

Re: Simple Solution

said by fuziwuzi:

My parents (in rural south-central Virginia) have only two options: satellite or incredibly slow DSL (1Mbps down/128kbps up). The DSL is wildly unreliable, with downtime of nearly 50%. Satellite is simply ludicrous with the price and caps. The DSL is a recent addition, only in the last year. Before it, the only option was dial-up and because of the type of phone system, that was limited to a maximum of 24kbps connection. Needless to say, not many people in that area even bother having internet service. There is no WISP, no Verizon, no cable (not even cable TV available).

What percent of people are in areas not covered by wired broadband? What is the cost of providing wired broadband to these areas? What is the minimum speed and acceptable uptime for rural broadband, and if it is expensive to provide, who should pay for it?
--
"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand." - Milton Friedman"

fuziwuzi
Not born yesterday
Premium
join:2005-07-01
Atlanta, GA

Re: Simple Solution

said by pandora:

said by fuziwuzi:

My parents (in rural south-central Virginia) have only two options: satellite or incredibly slow DSL (1Mbps down/128kbps up). The DSL is wildly unreliable, with downtime of nearly 50%. Satellite is simply ludicrous with the price and caps. The DSL is a recent addition, only in the last year. Before it, the only option was dial-up and because of the type of phone system, that was limited to a maximum of 24kbps connection. Needless to say, not many people in that area even bother having internet service. There is no WISP, no Verizon, no cable (not even cable TV available).

What percent of people are in areas not covered by wired broadband? What is the cost of providing wired broadband to these areas? What is the minimum speed and acceptable uptime for rural broadband, and if it is expensive to provide, who should pay for it?

Internet has become a necessary utility, just like electricity. So, just like the government stepped in to "electrify" the nation, including rural areas, so should providing adequate internet service be mandated. Unless you'd like to see the US sink even lower and become a Second- or Third-World country. Your "I've got mine, screw you" attitude is destroying this country little by little.
--
Teabaggers: Destroying America is Priority #1
pandora
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:2
Reviews:
·ooma
·Google Voice
·Comcast
·Future Nine Corp..

Re: Simple Solution

said by fuziwuzi:

Internet has become a necessary utility, just like electricity. So, just like the government stepped in to "electrify" the nation, including rural areas, so should providing adequate internet service be mandated. Unless you'd like to see the US sink even lower and become a Second- or Third-World country. Your "I've got mine, screw you" attitude is destroying this country little by little.

I don't know if we have 100% electrification to all rural communities even today. Once in Nebraska I passed a sign when entering the highway ... "Next service station 157 miles".

That's 157 miles to the next gas station. Should the government guarantee a gas station within 10 miles of everyone? How about a McDonalds? Apple store? Starbucks? Mall?

If I chose to live in an area 75 or more miles from the nearest service station, my expectation would be Internet, electricity and phone service could be a problem (along with a slew of other issues).

At some point, we can't provide everyone with everything.

As to slipping, the way not to slip is to remove the duopoly enjoyed by phone and cable companies across the U.S. If we allowed 5 or 10 companies to compete for access to poles and conduit, without requirements to cover undeserved areas, we'd see many getting much faster Internet at much lower prices.

For non-rural areas, we lack competition, for rural areas, there are co-ops for electricity, phone and Internet. How much the federal government should pay to provide services to people who choose to live far from any town or city I don't know.

But if someone wants to be remote, the are consequences.

Currently a large portion of our phone bill is government taxes and regulatory fees. Maybe it's time for the government to stop charging for 911, for all taxes and fees attached to all phone service. Every zip code should have a direct dial 911 number, a 10 digit number that can be called to reach 911 services. This would permit google and other companies to offer free services but also allow users access to 911.

With google, you get a free phone number and unlimited calls. An obitalk device is about $40. If you have broadband, most of your phone problems are solved. 911 can be covered by local property or state taxes, just as police, fire, and emergency services are currently taken care of.

Less taxes on phone service, on Internet, and less of a monopoly would reduce costs for most and spur competition.

We impose a ton of regulation on utilities (some good, but a lot not) and a ton of taxes and fees (most if not all bad). We also permit companies to purchase wireless spectrum and squat on it forever.

If spectrum isn't used in a reasonable period, it should be returned to the government. Many large companies are holding bandwidth to limit competition. This is another failure of appropriate government regulation.
--
"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand." - Milton Friedman"

dpush

@184.20.122.x

Re: Simple Solution

"How much the federal government should pay to provide services to people who choose to live far from any town or city I don't know.

But if someone wants to be remote, the are consequences."

These statements reveal a disturbing lack of understanding. Rural and remote are not synonymous. I live 15 miles from the State capitol in one direction, and 10 miles from town and freeway in two more. Rural, sure. Hardly remote. No cable, no DSL, and the copper line legacy system is incapable of carrying even decent POTS.

There are a few people that choose to live in remote areas. But that's not the problem. I live on the edge of a single cell tower coverage area. The past 7 years has seen this tower become congested. The unlimited 3G plan I bought then is now worthless because of Verizon's thuggish behavior in implementing their 'Network Optimization Plan'. They have the money to provide more towers and thus access. Instead they choose to screw the highest bandwidth users. Who is that? Those who have no other option.

I fired them after a long contentious, frustrating relationship. It was clear it'd only get worse. I bit the bullet and now pay 30 bucks a month more for SAT service with a cap. It too is substandard, but in ways I can live with.

Ya, I moved to 'the country' where we wanted to raise our boys. But its not Timbuktu. My state is in the top 10 ranked by population. And ya, it has consequences. Much of it brought about by attitudes such as displayed in the quotes above.
covfam

join:2012-03-05
Black River Falls, WI

1 recommendation

Satelite internet is worse than lousy,i had wildblue on my farm and according to everyone i got a "great" signal yes i consistantly got 15,000 to 25,000 Ms latency, that means regardless of internet speed (i had 8meg service) all you could do was check your email and look at internet pages that had little or no pictures, and could never use ANY type of video like you tube, cnn, hell most advertizements pretty much killed basic internet reading. with that kind of latency it make internet viewing so slow dialup feels faster. plus with those HUGE latencies you never know if your "click" actually went through plus the 10-25 gig caps on most satelite services prevent you from downloading any games/video/music for offline use. we gave up and went dialup untill we got out 756k dsl service from centurytell wich was MASSIVLY better than our so called 8 meg satelite service.

Simba7
I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT

1 recommendation

Re: Simple Solution

Oh, I've dealt with satellite. Back when HughesNet was "DirecWay", I couldn't even download a Linux ISO without getting FAP'd. Hell, standard Windows updates made short work of the bucket they give you everyday.

Only thing it was good for was, maybe, checking your email or running an IM.
PastTense

join:2011-07-06
united state

1 recommendation

Re: Simple Solution

Dialup is quite satisfactory for email.
john262

join:2003-09-26
Elko, NV

1 recommendation

What would you have the satellite ISP's do? They cannot repeal the laws of physics. It takes the signal a certain amount of time to travel back and forth between the satellite in the sky and the ground. There is no way around that. Either live with it or don't subscribe to it.

Simba7
I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT

Re: Simple Solution

said by john262:

What would you have the satellite ISP's do? They cannot repeal the laws of physics. It takes the signal a certain amount of time to travel back and forth between the satellite in the sky and the ground.

Sure, the latency sucks. At least give a reasonable cap, then. Give the users options of 100, 300, and 500GB caps. 20GB is pathetic.
--
Bresnan 30M/5M | CenturyLink 5M/896K
MyWS[PnmIIX3@3.2G,8G RAM,500G+1.5T+2T HDDs,Win7]
WifeWS[A64@2G,2G RAM,120G HDD,Win7]
Router[2xP3@1G,2G RAM,18G HDD,Allied Telesyn AT2560FX,2xDigital DE504,Sun X1034A,2xSun X4444A,SMC 8432BTA,Gentoo]
john262

join:2003-09-26
Elko, NV

Re: Simple Solution

There is only a finite amount of bandwidth available from their satellites. And launching additional satellites requires years of planning and millions of dollars of investments as well as regulatory approval. They don't have the capacity to be able to offer bigger caps unfortunately.

Simba7
I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT

Re: Simple Solution

said by john262:

There is only a finite amount of bandwidth available from their satellites. And launching additional satellites requires years of planning and millions of dollars of investments as well as regulatory approval. They don't have the capacity to be able to offer bigger caps unfortunately.

Bandwidth != Caps. It's been proven time and time again. If that were the case, why not lower their packet priority instead of slowing them down to 128k for the rest of the month if they go over their cap?
--
Bresnan 30M/5M | CenturyLink 5M/896K
MyWS[PnmIIX3@3.2G,8G RAM,500G+1.5T+2T HDDs,Win7]
WifeWS[A64@2G,2G RAM,120G HDD,Win7]
Router[2xP3@1G,2G RAM,18G HDD,Allied Telesyn AT2560FX,2xDigital DE504,Sun X1034A,2xSun X4444A,SMC 8432BTA,Gentoo]
covfam

join:2012-03-05
Black River Falls, WI
satelite customers only exist still because the cable & telecom industry refuse to expand thier coverage yet they pay many millions of dollars to lobby state legistlators into making laws or puting walls of red tape making it difficult for new isp's to pop up in those areas, this issue is particularly bad in south carolina, wisconsin. for example this year the university of wisconsin was quite upset with the lack of AT&T coverage that was promised in a deal to connect all the campuses with high speed internet calling it badgernet well after many years later at&t only covers 30% of the campuses and refuses to complete the rollout. so university of wisconsin decided to build thier own... well at&t spent massive amounts of money to get legislators to make it impossible for university of wisconsin to do. once LET cellphone coverage gets better people will be able to get as much data cap and faster seed and less latency than Satelite can give and not cost much more than satelite now!

battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000
Can you make up your mind if you want to complain or not complain about choices in your middle of no where town?
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company.

Simba7
I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT
said by battleop:

Give WISPs what they need. The need spectrum and decent power to overcome line of sight problems.

Oh, I'd love to do this in my state. I just need the capital to start. I already know where to set up the backhauls and place the gear. Just need an initial investment and I'm off.

Too bad I can't find anyone to do the initial investment.
--
Bresnan 30M/5M | CenturyLink 5M/896K
MyWS[PnmIIX3@3.2G,8G RAM,500G+1.5T+2T HDDs,Win7]
WifeWS[A64@2G,2G RAM,120G HDD,Win7]
Router[2xP3@1G,2G RAM,18G HDD,Allied Telesyn AT2560FX,2xDigital DE504,Sun X1034A,2xSun X4444A,SMC 8432BTA,Gentoo]

battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000

Re: Simple Solution

You don't have to have a ton of money to start out. I know of a lot of WISPs that started out with nothing building it as they go and now they have thousands of customers.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company.
silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA

Re: Simple Solution

Most WISPs that I know of started off back when 256kbps was sufficient and a T1 could be used to serve 20-30 customers. Now people expect 5 maybe even 10mbps for a WISP. The startup cost is prohibitive.
Liberty

join:2005-06-12
Tucson, AZ
Reviews:
·Cox HSI
said by battleop:

You don't have to have a ton of money to start out. I know of a lot of WISPs that started out with nothing building it as they go and now they have thousands of customers.

Sounds good but reality is far different
I am a WildBlue, HughesNet and local WISP agent
I have been in the rural internet business since DirecWay first launched

Where do I begin...

It griped me to no end when I saw WB & HN getting all the stimulus money
The owners of the WISP spent considerable time, money and efforts going to the govt paperwork seminars to apply for the stimulus funds, which never happened - the big boys got it all
With a tiny fraction of that money, we could further build out our network to serve same areas as WB & HN with better and more competitively priced service

We have absorbed many of those early WISP startups as they slowly collapsed, mainly due to their skill set being heavy on tech and not so much on maintaining a business

The cost of operating and maintaining a WISP, at least in this market, is considerably higher than an arm chair analysis provides
Every year, during our monsoon season, we lose between hundreds to thousands of $$ in gear due to lightening damage
Last season we took a direct hit to one of our primary relay stations that wiped out 100% of the gear - batteries, wind generator, solar panels, antennas and of course the radios
We also have to contend with idiots stealing our batteries and solar panels from our remote mountain top relay sites

Then there are the bullies out there to content with
There is a big WISP outfit out of Florida that has partnered with many electric coops to provide internet to the coop customers (Wi-Power) all across the country
They use Canopy gear and have their gear set to use the entire radio spectrum
The 'normal' way for competitors to share a market is to set down and divide up the spectrum, we get this slice and you get to use this other slice and we can coexist
These guys use it all and wreck the airwaves for everyone else

The politicians give lip service to helping the small business folks but when it comes time to write the checks, the big boys get all the love...
mlcarson

join:2001-09-20
Los Alamos, NM
Will WISP's charge a flat fee or will they be usage based? Most everything wireless seems to be usage based and is always more expensive than cable or DSL. WISP would be wonderful if it were priced the same as the options everybody else has. Even if it were priced similarly, it's still a dead end with respect to bandwidth. As urban dwellers are offered fiber with 100Mbs and 1Gbs speeds, rural people will be stuck with 10Mbs or less.

In my opinion, the only hope for rural people is the cable company. The carriers don't want anything to do with them but most cable companies seem to be making an effort to pick up these people.

battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000

1 recommendation

Re: Simple Solution

"Will WISP's charge a flat fee or will they be usage based?"

It seems to vary from market to market. It seems to largely depend on the WISP's costs to get bandwidth and the capacity for them to deliver it. WISPs currently have limited resources on usable spectrum and their cost to get bandwidth to a rural area can be extremely expensive.

"As urban dwellers are offered fiber with 100Mbs and 1Gbs speeds, rural people will be stuck with 10Mbs or less."

That's a trade off to living in a rural area. There are pros and cons to everything. If enough usable spectrum is available you can see these speeds go up.

"the only hope for rural people is the cable company"

If it hasn't happened by now it's probably not going to happen. The cost of fiber and coax sharply increases as the number of houses you pass decreases. Your per house covered on Fixed wireless is much cheaper because the distance from the AP does not have a large effect on your delivery costs.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company.
mlcarson

join:2001-09-20
Los Alamos, NM

Re: Simple Solution

This same debate happened with Rural Electrification and the government intervened with the REA. There are certain services that really need to be offered everywhere for the good of the nation as a whole and I believe Internet is one of those services today. It's easy for those that have to simply say those than don't can get by without.

said by battleop:

"As urban dwellers are offered fiber with 100Mbs and 1Gbs speeds, rural people will be stuck with 10Mbs or less."

That's a trade off to living in a rural area. There are pros and cons to everything. If enough usable spectrum is available you can see these speeds go up.

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
The cable companies want nothing to do with the very rural. Some are willing to service towns of 500+, but I don't know of any large cable companies actively expanding to markets smaller than that.

FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

Study developed by NTCA with Hudson Institute

This is just the NTCA(National Telecommunications Cooperative Association), that represents a large group of rural telcos, looking to keep that USF funded money coming their way, but in larger amounts.

NTCA - The National Telecommunications Cooperative Association is the premier association representing more than 580 locally owned and controlled telecommunications cooperatives and commercial companies throughout rural and small-town America. NTCA provides its members with legislative, regulatory and industry representation; meetings; publications; educational programs; and an array of employee benefit programs. Visit us at www.ntca.org.

Their press release about the study and their big meeting to get more money:
»www.frs.org/images/documents/10-···dson.pdf
»www.frs.org/about-frs/press-center

In other words, the NTCA paid Hudson & Kuttner to craft this study in their favor.
--
»www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/
»www.gop.com/2012-republican-plat···onalism/

•••
id09542

join:2002-04-25
Bloomington, IL

Who are these people?

What is the definition of rural ... a house with no neighbors for a mile, or a town of 3000 people?

Not saying it is great, but small towns around me, under 3000 people, are served by cable with high speeds and most also have DSL, albeit at a slower speed, but also lower in price.

Maybe rural Illinois is built out better, so my experience is unusual.

••••
SunnyD

join:2009-03-20
Madison, AL

I'm looking at a local WISP right now

They want $69.99/month plus install fee (waived with 2 year agreement) for a "3 to 10Mbps" speed based on site conditions.

Problem is I currently have DSL for $40/month for 6Mbps flat, and am working to get Comcast franchised in my town which will give me anywhere from 10Mbps for $20/month to who knows how fast.

Tell me why I should go with the WISP?
silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA

Re: I'm looking at a local WISP right now

You probably won't qualify for 10mbps at $20 per month.

And if Comcast is truly willing to offer service in your area, then you are not very rural.

TonyKZ1

join:2010-04-08
Marble Hill, MO

Rural Broadband..

"Kuttner's study correctly notes that few rural users can get anything more than 3 Mbps down and 768 kbps up,"

Ha, I wish we could only get 3Mbps down. We've got "wanna be" 56kbps which more like 28.8-45kbps dialup available, unless you can afford the expensive satellite internet.
john262

join:2003-09-26
Elko, NV

Re: Rural Broadband..

HughesNet offers 10/1 MBPS for $49.95 per month with no installation charges with a contract. There are probably other hidden fees. I am just going by their website. But I pay $59.95 per month for 6MBPS/512 KBPS. So Satellite isn't really that expensive anymore. Of course you have to deal with all of the drawbacks such as latency and bandwidth caps.
silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA

Re: Rural Broadband..

Their 10/1 package is $59.95 (actual price) plus an additional $9.95 per month for rental fees. That brings it to ~$70 per month for 10GB of usage for an entire month and an additional 10GB of usage if you want to use the internet between midnight and 8 AM. That's pretty expensive in my opinion.
PastTense

join:2011-07-06
united state

What is your comprehensive solution?

What is your comprehensive solution?

Anyone?

Something like the Australian plan, where:
"Australia should bump its fiber build up to 93 percent, provide fixed wireless service for four percent, and Ka-band satellite service for the remaining three percent—and it can all be done in eight years and on budget"

»arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010···n-fiber/
eric1333

join:2007-02-14
Regan, ND

Fiber

We're quite lucky here that the local telco (BEK communications) recently put fiber up in our market, we live in a little town of 40 north east of Bismarck, but can get upto 40 Mbps, before that it was 1.5 DSL at the best. Wireless seems to be the most effective way to go though without having to lay new lines, etc, other than backhaul lines to the towers.

txpatriot

@or.us

What DSL "obligations"?

Karl you say telcos have DSL "obligations" and they are trying to get out from under them. What are those DSL "obligations", exactly?

gilgamush

@optonline.net

Mesh networking only solution

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_mesh_network

The only way i see them getting connected is to do it themselves, via mesh networking.. Kind of like the original Internet topology..

»computer.howstuffworks.com/how-w···work.htm

Embrace technologies like mesh networking that let people be both clients and servers.. Its a way that users build infrastructure.. each node forwards packets to the next node..

The problem with the centralized model is that it will never be profitable to serve markets like that, just like its not profitable insuring sick people, only healthy people. So, as long as ISPs must be profitable we have to accept that lots of people wont be able to afford internet/phone/cable.

It will get worse, not better, as more and more people become marginalized, fewer and fewer of them will be able to afford the add ons that make the for profit model profitable..
Liberty

join:2005-06-12
Tucson, AZ
Reviews:
·Cox HSI

Re: Mesh networking only solution

Mesh networks have their place
Although not as desirable as it may seem for a number of reasons

Unless the subscriber gear has dual radios, the thru put is cut in half or worse
Dual radio CPEs are more than twice as expensive to deploy
They also require less powerful antennas which can not receive/ broadcast nearly as far - resulting often in the need for more backhaul sites closer in

Also in the real world residential applications, there will be 'weak links'
Meaning there will be situations where one segment of the mesh is totally dependent on another subscriber's gear being up for the 'down stream' mesh clients to have connectivity
Lose that subscriber for any number of reasons and a whole group of subs can be SOL - we often do not have the luxury of multi paths to multi subs in a real, rural world like traffic control devices in the city where mesh is a viable option

What it boils down to is whoever has the most influence ($$$) gets the best fields to play on
The rest of us little guys have to duke it out in the dirt...