2009: A Year Of Rural Broadband Musical Chairs?Carriers dumping less profitable rural networks and unwanted users... ( old news - 04:34PM Wednesday Jan 21 2009) tags: coverage · business · Op/Ed · Charter Pipeline · RoadRunner Cable · Midcontinent CommunicationsLast summer, Time Warner Cable announced that the company was selling a group of small cable systems in 25 different states to Windjammer Communications. The cable systems, which serve about 80,000 basic cable subscribers and 120,000 revenue generating units (RGUs, or individual services like VoIP, broadband, TV) are too far from Time Warner Cable's main geographical areas of operation. Many of these markets were in need of upgrades and only offered very basic high speed access and no VoIP. As users in our Roadrunner forum note, some of these customers had just gotten used to being Time Warner Cable customers after formerly being part of Adelphia. Some users complain they were never informed by either Windjammer or Time Warner Cable that the transition was occurring, while others say their initial experience with Windjammer has been a bit rocky. Those impacted should note the Windjammer website offers a guide to the transition and urges VoIP customers to manage their VoIP accounts here. Both phone and cable companies are increasingly selling less profitable rural areas so they can focus on higher ROI areas. Verizon recently sold off their networks in the entire state of New Hampshire, Vermont and Maine to Fairpoint Communications, and customers in those States are awaiting the final switchover on January 31. It's likely Verizon may also sell off other predominately rural markets like West Virginia and upstate New York. Windjammer is supposedly interested in acquiring several of the markets that Charter has been offloading as the carrier considers bankruptcy protection. That announcement by Charter is expected as soon as next week, and the cable company has already announced they're selling 26 smaller rural markets in Minnesota to Mid-Continent Communications (see our user reviews). Rural broadband users had it hard enough, given they're usually the last to see upgrades -- if they can get service at all. When they come to our forums to complain, they're usually called rednecks and told to move. Now they're increasingly being shuttled about like unwanted cargo between mediocre carriers, left to enjoy the transition headaches that entails. Of course it could always be worse: they could be American satellite broadband customers.
Related:- Verizon: We're Not Setting Broadband Definition Bar Low
- What Network Neutrality Is REALLY About
- Getting Your Cable Carrier To Go That Extra Mile
- Charter Offers 60 Mbps In California
- Verizon's Hanging Up On Rural America
- Telecom Lobbyists: U.S. Actually Broadband Leader
- Don't Criticize Our National Broadband Plan
- ISPs Won't Give You Broadband, Won't let Anyone Else, Either
|
 
baineschile
2600
Premium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI
1 edit | Living in rural areas.... There are positives and negatives. No traffic, more leisureley lifestlye, but you give up certain things, broadband competition is one of them
If you HAVE to have a 4+mb connection, do research before you purchase a home.... | |
|  | OverModded
Premium
join:2002-03-03
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
1 edit | Re: Living in rural areas.... said by baineschile  :There are positives and negatives. No traffic, more leisureley lifestlye, but you give up certain things, broadband competition is one of them If you HAVE to have a 4+mb connection, do research before you purchase a home.... Companies grow and shrink endlessly. They buy underpriced assets and sell off overpriced, underperforming assets. It is all part of a free, capitalist society. History has shown that centrally managed, socialist economies ultimately fail and underperform free economies. That doesn't mean that everyone will get treated fairly or equally or that freedom doesn't extract a cost to some people. But IMHO that is better than the alternatives.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
| | Techie714
join:2005-08-02
Anaheim, CA
 ·ViaTalk
| Yea, you wealthy people living in those rural areas with your better food, no traffic, less people, moral authority, etc. You folks need to come down here to the big city and live in the SAME HELL HOLE we all do. Lots of traffic, crappy fast food, homeless walking all over the place, gangs, shootings, etc. /Sarcasm off
BTW: I live in "The O.C." it's not really such a hell hole..hehe | |
| | jameswade
join:2001-12-09
Hot Springs, NC | We'd be happy to just have 256 Kbps. | |
| | PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| said by baineschile :but you give up certain things, broadband competition is one of them ... According to official U.S. Policy, as ratified in the 1996 Telecom Act, no it isn't. Affordable broadband is deemed important enough that it is to be made available to all Americans; e.g., it's not considered the same as providing a Starbucks on every corner.
BTW, you guys have a waaay too idyllic, unrealistic view of rural living. Very few are wealthy landowners living on luxurious estates. | |
| | 
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by baineschile :There are positives and negatives. No traffic, more leisureley lifestlye, but you give up certain things, broadband competition is one of them If you HAVE to have a 4+mb connection, do research before you purchase a home.... That like saying people in rural area don't deserve phone service, electricity or running water or decent roads.
the whole "if you don;t like it move" is a dumb idea. just imagine if all the people in those rural areas did in fact move ot the "big city" that city would see a huge increase in population which would make traffic worse and strain infrascture of all types including roads, utilities, schools and hospitals. The that city would have to increase taxes to pay for the infrastructure improvements. If I'm living in the city I'd rather pay about 1% that cost to make sure those in the boonies can at least have access to broadband. | |
| beaups
join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH
| Always been this way How come the water companies don't bring water and sewage lines in? Why doesn't the natural gas company bring gas lines in? Unprofitable. And I would argue that these are far more important than pay-per-view and a 30mb connection.
I lived in rural ohio for quite some time and had a well and a septic system, an awful electric furnace, and until a few years ago no broadband. It was a price I paid and I accepted it as one of the tradeoffs of having a lot of land and some peace and quiet.
I can't understand why we push so hard an try to force the major carriers to serve these sorts of areas. | |
| | | | | 
Millenniumle
join:2007-11-11
Fredonia, NY | Re: Always been this way It's the people you know that kill you. So don't feel safe out there.  | |
| | | | | | decifal
join:2007-03-10
Bon Aqua, TN
| said by beaups :How come the water companies don't bring water and sewage lines in? Why doesn't the natural gas company bring gas lines in? Unprofitable. And I would argue that these are far more important than pay-per-view and a 30mb connection. I lived in rural ohio for quite some time and had a well and a septic system, an awful electric furnace, and until a few years ago no broadband. It was a price I paid and I accepted it as one of the tradeoffs of having a lot of land and some peace and quiet. I can't understand why we push so hard an try to force the major carriers to serve these sorts of areas. Hmm.. Natural gas and water both come by here.. But yet no broadband... Got anything else? Personally, I think franchise laws were getting in the way for my area being it is close to three county's.. But we will see | |
| 
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY | The Holy one will provide Not to worry His Holyness Obama the first will magically provide broadband to all  | |
| | 
ninjatutle
Premium
join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA | Re: The Holy one will provide Yes He Can! | |
| | 
BigJack75
@qwest.net
| Not only that, but ... said by Obama at Inaguration Address :
We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.
Its magic I tell you! | |
| | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Re: The Holy one will provide said by BigJack75 :Not only that, but ... said by Obama at Inaguration Address :
We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.
Its magic I tell you! Look at the last guy who said that »'Universal Broadband By 2007' | |
| | | | |
the_ticket
@qwest.net
| Re: The Holy one will provide said by Eat Me :Well at least he'll be giving something back to the rural people who the Government is stealing tax dollars from to subsidize urban areas. (Referring specifically to abbot districts in NJ) that's interesting. i wonder who is subsidizing your water, electricity, gas, and the crops that you grow. couldn't be urban areas, could it? | |
| | | | 
neowulf
join:2000-10-20
Port Orange, FL
| Re: The Holy one will provide I love people who think rural means they are farmers. I have a property in rural West Virgina, sure there is farm land up there but most people in the area are not farmers. As for the water up there, there is no city water, it is all wells. Electricity is the same price per 1 kWh as my home in Daytona Beach, Fl. There is no gas, you can have propane brought in but there is no cost break on that, in fact there is a delivery fee. If you do grow crops or have farmland you do get a farm tax credit on your real estate taxes. But then if farmers had no incentive to make their land farmland in the first place there would be none of those crops that I am sure you take part in eating.
But for the people who think all rural people make it their choice to live out in the sticks I don't think that is true for all of them. Some simply can not afford to move or their job simply does not exist in a urban area.
It does not bother me much that there is not even phone services there, but I also don't live there full time. But I don't get what peoples problem is that rural areas want broadband access, and if they say they want it they are told to just move. | |
| | | | |
the_ticket
@qwest.net
| Re: The Holy one will provide said by neowulf :It does not bother me much that there is not even phone services there, but I also don't live there full time. But I don't get what peoples problem is that rural areas want broadband access, and if they say they want it they are told to just move. No one has a problem with you wanting broadband access, the problem comes when you expect the rest of us to pay for it. If you want broadband access, pay for it yourselves. Don't expect the rest of us to pay for it in the form of subsidies and higher taxes, and don't expect the Verizon's and the AT&T's to pay for it because its clearly not cost effective for them to do so. They aren't charities. The Cable/Telco's would be happy to provide you with broadband service if you paid for the lines to be strung to your house, if you don't want to pay for it, quit whining about it. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
neowulf
join:2000-10-20
Port Orange, FL
| Not one single person I have ever talked to out in a "rural" area asked anyone to pay for their services. Most are hard work people who just don't have access to any such services at all.
Most are true republicans and don't think there should be any subsidies at all. There are more subsidies in urban areas then rural areas, people in projects have access to broadband so are you telling me people in the projects should be cut off from broadband because they take part in subsidies?
Subsidies has no part in the reason there is no broadband in rural areas, as the poster above said it is the Telco's and cable companies who have lobbyist telling Washington that everyone in the US has access to broadband, while it is simply not true. I do not consider satellite as a reasonable alternative, and I think any one who has actually used satellite internet would agree.
If Verizon told me it would cost 10k to run a line to my rural address, and I lived their full time and wanted Broadband bad enough, I would have no problem with that. But that option does not exist, and I am sure not telling any one to pay for any of my services.
See this is the problem, people have it in their head that if a company has to put in services for others they will have to pay more "taxes" this simply is not true and you are just making up nonsense about you having to pay for rural peoples services. | |
| | | | | | |
the_ticket
@verizon.net
| Re: The Holy one will provide said by neowulf :Not one single person I have ever talked to out in a "rural" area asked anyone to pay for their services. Most are hard work people who just don't have access to any such services at all... ...See this is the problem, people have it in their head that if a company has to put in services for others they will have to pay more "taxes" this simply is not true and you are just making up nonsense about you having to pay for rural peoples services. If this is simply not true, how is the broadband in the rural area going to get paid for? If a company is REQUIRED to build out to rural areas, the money has to come from somewhere, whether the build out is subsidized by the gov't, whether they have to raise prices for everyone else, or whether it comes from something like the USF. Either way, most of that money is coming from everybody else's pockets. IT IS JUST NOT COST EFFECTIVE TO SERVICE BROADBAND TO MOST RURAL AREAS, I don't know what part of that concept people don't understand. | |
| | | | | | | | 
Eat Me
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
 ·PenTeleData
·Future Nine Corpor..
·VOIPo
·Vonage
| Re: The Holy one will provide said by the_ticket :said by neowulf :Not one single person I have ever talked to out in a "rural" area asked anyone to pay for their services. Most are hard work people who just don't have access to any such services at all... ...See this is the problem, people have it in their head that if a company has to put in services for others they will have to pay more "taxes" this simply is not true and you are just making up nonsense about you having to pay for rural peoples services. If this is simply not true, how is the broadband in the rural area going to get paid for? If a company is REQUIRED to build out to rural areas, the money has to come from somewhere, whether the build out is subsidized by the gov't, whether they have to raise prices for everyone else, or whether it comes from something like the USF. Either way, most of that money is coming from everybody else's pockets. IT IS JUST NOT COST EFFECTIVE TO SERVICE BROADBAND TO MOST RURAL AREAS, I don't know what part of that concept people don't understand. That's fine. Just give us back the USF and other taxes rural telephone subscribers have been paying all of these years. Either refund our money or build out the damn infrastructure in rural and urban areas alike. | |
| | | | | | | | |
the_ticket
@verizon.net
| Re: The Holy one will provide Rural customers aren't the only ones paying USF. Everybody who has a telephone line pays USF, so if anybody's getting a refund, everyone is... tell me, what taxes do rural telephone subscribers pay that urban subscribers don't? We have to pay your outrageous termination fees. You just don't understand that the urban subscribers are the ones who subsidize your telephone and other utilities, whether its subsidies from the gov't or higher prices for all subscribers to compensate for the extra cost of rural development. If the telcos/cable-cos were allowed to charge rates based on what it costs to build in rural areas you would all get the picture, because your rates would be 4 times higher than that of urban subscribers. Fact is, they aren't allowed to. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Eat Me
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
·PenTeleData
·Future Nine Corpor..
·VOIPo
·Vonage
| Re: The Holy one will provide said by the_ticket :
Rural customers aren't the only ones paying USF. Everybody who has a telephone line pays USF, so if anybody's getting a refund, everyone is... tell me, what taxes do rural telephone subscribers pay that urban subscribers don't? We have to pay your outrageous termination fees. You just don't understand that the urban subscribers are the ones who subsidize your telephone and other utilities, whether its subsidies from the gov't or higher prices for all subscribers to compensate for the extra cost of rural development. If the telcos/cable-cos were allowed to charge rates based on what it costs to build in rural areas you would all get the picture, because your rates would be 4 times higher than that of urban subscribers. Fact is, they aren't allowed to.
Wrong, wrong and wrong.
You are correct that everyone pays the USF.
What you are incorrect about is where it goes.
62% of it is to subsidize "high cost areas." The problem is that the telcos do NOT define exactly what a "high cost area" is, and it definitely does not mean exclusively rural areas. In fact I'd wager that the high cost of FiOS and U-Verse is being at least indirectly subsidized by the USF. Because it is largely unaccounted for, no one will know.
»www.teletruth.com has much more info than I will post here. I suggest you take some time away from your uninformedd bashing of rural citizens and read.
As for your last statement - cable companies are absolutely allowed to charge what it costs to build out in rural areas. It is called a "line extension policy" and it is based on population density. If there is not sufficient population density, they are allowed to charge to build out to that area. Some have been quoted in the thousands of dollars, sometimes as much as $14,000 to lay cable to their homes. Many here have decided that getting satellite was a more cost effective alternative. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
the_ticket
@verizon.net
| Re: The Holy one will provide First of all, this is not an argument about what the USF is. The USF is a joke, its done nothing but line the pockets of the politicians, corporations, and lobbyists. The fact that the money is largely unaccounted for reinforces my reasoning against subsidies of any kind. Even if only 45% of that USF money actually made it to rural areas, rural population only accounts for 20% of the total population, its still a subsidy paid for by the rest of the population... The rest is just being raided by thieves or going to people who don't "need" it.
The point of the argument is whether or not telcos/cable-cos should be REQUIRED to build out to rural areas. I am of the belief that they shouldn't be required, because that just means everyone else has to pay for it in the form of subsidies or higher rates. Your line extension policy example is not the norm. If it was, most rural subscribers would have rates through the roof. Furthermore, if you think your utility coop theory will translate to broadband deployment, why isn't it being done already? Maybe it is... but if it works so well, why do there need to be build out requirements?
If you don't believe there should be build out requirements, then there is no argument between us. I don't care about the technicalities of the USF, I just want it abolished and the PEOPLE's money returned. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Eat Me
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
·PenTeleData
·Future Nine Corpor..
·VOIPo
·Vonage
| Re: The Holy one will provide I think they should be required to build out to rural areas, because all along they've been collecting taxes and fees from rural customers for years now.
As it is now, Verizon and ATT aren't even building out FiOS or U-Verse to even moderately populated suburban areas under their control.
Rural areas also contribute more to the economy than you care to know.
Food, water, electricity, natural resources, fuel (oil, coal, gas, biomass, ethanol), interstate highways all depend on rural areas. They are even used for fiber optic broadband lines.
So since the big cities are getting so much from the rural areas, it is only fair that their residents who pretty much make your cushy life in the big cities possible get access to advanced services. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
the_ticket
@qwest.net
| Re: The Holy one will provide said by Eat Me :I think they should be required to build out to rural areas, because all along they've been collecting taxes and fees from rural customers for years now. They've been collecting taxes and fees from urban customers too. Urban customers pay much more into it than the rural customers, therefore, its a subsidy.
said by Eat Me :As it is now, Verizon and ATT aren't even building out FiOS or U-Verse to even moderately populated suburban areas under their control. Of course they are going to build it out to the most profitable areas first. If an area is worth developing, they will probably do it.
said by Eat Me :Rural areas also contribute more to the economy than you care to know. Food, water, electricity, natural resources, fuel (oil, coal, gas, biomass, ethanol), interstate highways all depend on rural areas. They are even used for fiber optic broadband lines. So since the big cities are getting so much from the rural areas, it is only fair that their residents who pretty much make your cushy life in the big cities possible get access to advanced services. Wow... where to start on this one... You act like urban areas are just getting all this stuff for free. We pay for all that stuff. The food is subsidized by us AND paid for by us in grocery stores. We pay for water rights. We pay for coal and electricity, we paid for rights of way for interstate roads and fiber broadband lines. Just because you personally don't make any money on any of these things doesn't mean somebody isn't. As for your statement on "cushy life in the big cities," you've just proven how uninformed you really are... | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Eat Me
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
·PenTeleData
·Future Nine Corpor..
·VOIPo
·Vonage
1 edit | Re: The Holy one will provide said by the_ticket :
Wow... where to start on this one... You act like urban areas are just getting all this stuff for free. We pay for all that stuff. The food is subsidized by us AND paid for by us in grocery stores. We pay for water rights. We pay for coal and electricity, we paid for rights of way for interstate roads and fiber broadband lines. Just because you personally don't make any money on any of these things doesn't mean somebody isn't. As for your statement on "cushy life in the big cities," you've just proven how uninformed you really are...
Actually a lot of what "you paid" for was seized via eminent domain.
Many landowners don't willingly give up land to build interstate highways, run powerlines, gas lines or run broadband fiber.
IT IS SEIZED THROUGH EMINENT DOMAIN.
In order to satisfy the constitutional requirement that property shall not be taken without fair compensation, the Government gives landowners some token amount of money, which is most times far below the fair market value.
Utility easements are even worse because they don't even offer much, if any compensation. Maybe a small adjustment in your property taxes, if any.
I think you need to get out of the city and open your eyes before you keep condemning rural customers to hell.
As far as big cities go, I've lived in New York City for many years. I know what it's like in the city. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
the_ticket
@qwest.net
| Re: The Holy one will provide Actually, MOST of it is not seized via eminent domain. Certainly there have been cases where what you described is true. By an large, however, most people sell their land at a sizable profit. Most often, its the greediest who get screwed by eminent domain. As far as "getting out of the big city," I lived in rural NW Iowa for years. Just because you were a slacker in the Big Apple, doesn't mean everyone else is. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Eat Me
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
·PenTeleData
·Future Nine Corpor..
·VOIPo
·Vonage
| Re: The Holy one will provide said by the_ticket :
Actually, MOST of it is not seized via eminent domain. Certainly there have been cases where what you described is true. By an large, however, most people sell their land at a sizable profit. Most often, its the greediest who get screwed by eminent domain. As far as "getting out of the big city," I lived in rural NW Iowa for years. Just because you were a slacker in the Big Apple, doesn't mean everyone else is.
Today the reality is that investor owned utilities are too damned cheap to pay fair market value, so they are going straight to the state to seize property.
It is happening right now with PSE&G's susquehanna-roseland powerline project. They are bypassing township approvals and going straight to the state.
They had a public meeting in town and almost 1000 people showed up, and I haven't heard yet one person support willingly giving up their property to run a powerline. Furthermore, those who are in sight of the line aren't compensated for any decrease in property value.
It is NOT about greed. It is about Governments allowing private companies to seize property.
Anyway the point is that we would be just fine without the additional power line. Big cities like Newark and NYC won't, so now they have to force this power line somehow. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
the_ticket
@qwest.net
| Re: The Holy one will provide You act like rural areas have a monopoly on eminent domain disputes. Eminent domain disputes happen everywhere, including urban areas. If its such a problem, its up to you and the voters in your area to vote in politicians who will stop eminent domain abuse... | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Eat Me
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
·PenTeleData
·Future Nine Corpor..
·VOIPo
·Vonage
1 edit | said by the_ticket :
No one has a problem with you wanting broadband access, the problem comes when you expect the rest of us to pay for it. If you want broadband access, pay for it yourselves. Don't expect the rest of us to pay for it in the form of subsidies and higher taxes, and don't expect the Verizon's and the AT&T's to pay for it because its clearly not cost effective for them to do so. They aren't charities. The Cable/Telco's would be happy to provide you with broadband service if you paid for the lines to be strung to your house, if you don't want to pay for it, quit whining about it.
You're doing tlike the telcos that are deploying next gen services such as FiOS and U-verse to highly populated urban and suburban areas did so all on their own.
Do some reading on the Universal Service Fund, an 11.4% TAX that ALL long distance users had to pay.
You want to hear about subsidies? The USF is the height of subsidies. No one knows where it went, meanwhile we keep paying it (at least those suckers who are still telco subscribers, not me!!!) Verizon is building out FiOS and AT&T is building out U-Verse, but NOT to everyone who paid into this ridiculous slush fund.
So you wanna talk about subsidies? Let's get back our 11.4% USF subsidy first. Then we can talk about who's subsidizing who. | |
| | | | | | |
the_ticket
@qwest.net
| Re: The Holy one will provide said by Eat Me :said by the_ticket :
No one has a problem with you wanting broadband access, the problem comes when you expect the rest of us to pay for it. If you want broadband access, pay for it yourselves. Don't expect the rest of us to pay for it in the form of subsidies and higher taxes, and don't expect the Verizon's and the AT&T's to pay for it because its clearly not cost effective for them to do so. They aren't charities. The Cable/Telco's would be happy to provide you with broadband service if you paid for the lines to be strung to your house, if you don't want to pay for it, quit whining about it.
You're doing tlike the telcos that are deploying next gen services such as FiOS and U-verse to highly populated urban and suburban areas did so all on their own. Do some reading on the Universal Service Fund, an 11.4% TAX that ALL long distance users had to pay. You want to hear about subsidies? The USF is the height of subsidies. No one knows where it went, meanwhile we keep paying it (at least those suckers who are still telco subscribers, not me!!!) Verizon is building out FiOS and AT&T is building out U-Verse, but NOT to everyone who paid into this ridiculous slush fund. So you wanna talk about subsidies? Let's get back our 11.4% USF subsidy first. Then we can talk about who's subsidizing who. As I said above, I agree that the USF is the height of subsidies, and I think its a joke. I'm all for returning that money back to the people, especially since urban areas put the majority of the money in that fund... | |
| | | | |
the_ticket
@qwest.net
| said by neowulf :Electricity is the same price per 1 kWh as my home in Daytona Beach, Fl. Another thing... this statement is exactly what I'm talking about. Why do you think electricity costs the same price per kWh as your home in Daytona Beach? Do you really think it costs the same to bring that electricity out to that ranch in the sticks as it does to bring it to a house in a neighborhood that has 400 other homes? Its being subsidized. The transmission lines for the ranch were subsidized and the electricity is being subsidized... | |
| | | | | |
Eat Me
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
·PenTeleData
·Future Nine Corpor..
·VOIPo
·Vonage
| Re: The Holy one will provide said by the_ticket :said by neowulf :Electricity is the same price per 1 kWh as my home in Daytona Beach, Fl. Another thing... this statement is exactly what I'm talking about. Why do you think electricity costs the same price per kWh as your home in Daytona Beach? Do you really think it costs the same to bring that electricity out to that ranch in the sticks as it does to bring it to a house in a neighborhood that has 400 other homes? Its being subsidized. The transmission lines for the ranch were subsidized and the electricity is being subsidized... Huge, huge myth!
I live in Wantage, NJ. It's a nice little rural town. Electricity is cheaper out here than the rest of the state because it is supplied by a member owned cooperative (Sussex Rural Electric Cooperative). Every member owns a share, gets voting rights and even gets dividends!
It was done this way precisely because investor owned utilities did not want to service rural areas. We co-own generation facilities along with other co-ops, and buy only about 30% of our power on the open market.
THAT is the height of self sufficiency.
You want to hear about subsidies? Why the hell is PSE&G, a big investor owned utility coming here and saying that they will take our PRIVATE PROPERTY to run a powerline? PSE&G is running this powerline from Pennsylvania to Essex County NJ to supply big cities like Newark and almost certainly NYC.
In case you didn't understand I'll say it again.
Big city utilities want to take private property from rural land owners to run a powerline to supply power to big cities. The land owners will most likely not be properly compensated, and the decline in property values for neighboring property owners will be immense, and they will get NO compensation for it.
The land owners could of course say no, in which case the utility will simply go to the state and get the state to seize the land through eminent domain.
So again I ask, who's subsidizing who? | |
| | | | | | |
the_ticket
@qwest.net | Re: The Holy one will provide If your system works so well, use coops to deploy broadband in under served areas. Don't expect the rest of us to pay for it with buildout requirements. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
the_ticket
@qwest.net
| Re: The Holy one will provide How are you subsidizing things like urban school districts or anything else? School districts are funded by the property taxes of the people in that particular district. If your property taxes are being used to fund the school district of an "inner city" then you aren't as rural as you think you are. Furthermore, I've already stated I do not support subsidies OF ANY KIND for anybody for anything. | |
| | | | | | | | |
neowulf
join:2000-10-20
Port Orange, FL
| Re: The Holy one will provide You said that much better then myself thanks.
That is pretty much exactly how it is on my 110 acres in West Virgina. We also do not take part in the farm credit as we use it for hunting. The Electricity is provided by a member owned cooperative, which was also how I got my power down in the Florida Keys. Back in the days the Florida Keys were considered rural also and had no broadband, since I have left the keys seems like there is broadband down there now, and I doubt it has anything to do with subsidies.
Pretty much small family owned farms do not see any of the subsidies this guy is talking about. The most I hear the average farmer gets is a farm tax credit on the land that is used to farm on their real estate taxes. They still pay normal taxes on their homes. That is why there is less and less small farms every year.
Not only would you have to worry about bad food from China. The cost of food would also increase more then any subsidies are taking away from you from taxes.
But then again subsidies have nothing to do with broadband in the first place... | |
| | | | | | | | | travelguy
join:1999-09-03
Santa Fe, NM
| Re: AT&T sold off phone services to Valor said by KrK :A few years ago Windstream Communications bought some of these areas. An amazing thing happened. They deployed DSL. Most of the Coop telephone providers I know are far more advanced than, say, Qwest. I wish I could get the speeds my inlaws in ND get. | |
| | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
·Comcast
·AT&T Wireless Broa..
·Cricket Broadband
·Qwest.net
·magicjack.com
·BeeCreek Communica..
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| Re: AT&T sold off phone services to Valor What service are they on btw?
Here, we have Qwest. See my below post.
In Windstream areas, most places can do at least 3/384, even out in the sticks. With FastPath, and thus with good pings. Closer to town/in town, 12/768 service is available for $45 per month.
In Embarq areas, speeds ramp up from an expensive $35 for 768/384 (naked) to a cool $55 for 10/896. Both Embarq and Windstream overprovision (Windstream only on higher end tiers but still) so you get the speed you pay for. As opposed to Qwest.
CenturyTel (merging with Embarq) offers 1.5/256 DSL in many of their markets, I'd even say most of them. DSL service beyond that comes in 3, 6, 8 and 10 Mbps varieties, depending on how far you are from the CO, with up to 768k of upload speed. There are also fiber developments that have 15/768.
GVTC, a local outfit not too far from my home in Texas, is deploying FTTH in all their new developments (as are Embarq, Windstream and CenturyTel). Business service goes all the way up to 25 Mbps for "over the counter" FTTP, and FTTH has just been upgraded in speed to the following (naked prices; bundling or contract reduce the monthly price by $5, both bundling and contract reduce it by $10)...
768/128 (!) - $30
1.5/384 - $35
5/768 - $40
5/2 - $50
8/1 - $45
8/2 - $55
12/1.5 - $60
12/3 - $70
20/3 - $75
DSL is available on up to 5 Mbit packages, and cable is available on up to 12 Mbit. You don't get speed upgrades on either for uploads, but the price is the same as FTTH.
So yes, it is perfectly possible for rural operations to get fiber (and DOCSIS 3) into homes, but they have to be co-op-minded, and that's what WIndjammer et al ain't :/ | |
| | | 
CaptainRR
Premium
join:2006-04-21
Blue Rock, OH
| I am in the same boat. Have at&t out in the sticks in rural Ohio and the best I get is 19.2K dialup. Were I used to live up in NY I was on a small local telco and Broadband was available everywere even out in the sticks. I would love to see at&t take a hike out of the rural markets and get some smaller companies and even coops because as far as I can see broadband in rural areas will never happen when the big guy is busy running fiber in the cities. | |
| iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
·Comcast
·AT&T Wireless Broa..
·Cricket Broadband
·Qwest.net
·magicjack.com
·BeeCreek Communica..
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| Cry me a river...it's not a rural problem Powell, WY
Population: 5,300ish
Location: rural
Internet: Bresnan Cable (lousy), Muni fiber (awesome)
Golden, CO
Population: 17,100ish
Location: Semi-urban, quick drive to Denver, college students abound
Internet: Comcast Cable (no DOCSIS 3.0, just 1.1, but no likelihood of selling off), USCable (not in most places, meh quality), Qwest DSL (no ADSL2+, some in-town areas get 5 Mbit as the highest speed, like me)
Fredericksburg, TX
Population: 11,000+
Location: Semi-rural, halfway between San Antonio and Austin
Internet: Austin RR, low likelihood of selloff, 15/2 + PowerBoost highest speed but I hear it doesn't get there...7/512 works okay though...very limited, expensive ($50/month) 1.5/512 DSL with no upgrades in sight
Outside of Fredericksburg, TX
Population: A thousand or two
Location: Rural, but at least some within RADSL range of town
Internet: Wireless, EvDO (Sprint/Verizon) or sat. Wireless is rather unreliable and a 512k connection is $43 two miles outside city limits. 1 mbit is $70, 2 mbit is $100, but QoS is so poor you don't want to do either. Better choice: EvDO with Millenicom: 1-1.5 Mbps/250-350k for $60/month.
So as long as you've got reliable internet, TV and VoIP with a triple play that's $100 per month for digital cable, all-inclusive VoIP and 1.5M+ internet, cry me a river.
I'm not saying that people shouldn't have the best connections possible, but it's easy to find areas where service is worse than where you're at. Take JetBroadband for example...ech.
Also, urban internet, with oversold nodes, lousy copper wiring and municipal contracts, can be just as lousy as the rural stuff. Heck, if you get a forward-thinking rural telco you might get FTTH. Problem is, rural telcos get bought up, and when cable companies etc. spin off operations, they're generally not to MSOs who have the same work ethic as the fiber-focused rural telcos.
Yes, this is a problem. No, I don't think Comcast, TWC, Charter or Cox should be orced to hold onto properties that they deem unprofitable. Yes, I think those "unprofitable" properties should be sold to companies that actually give a crap about their customers.
For the record, Midcontinent Communications seems to have some competitive offerings in their areas of service, so former Charter customers shouldn't be too afraid. Granted, upload speeds on the cable connections aren't great, but from what I can gather Midco actually has better connectivity on the headend (Verizon + AT&T + Sprint) and they have an uncapped-download plan.
Subbenlink? Meh. JetBroadand? Oh noes! Windjammer? Meh.
That's why Mr. Presi-glorious-savior-dent should give incentives (low interest loans) to companies that take over rural systems, specifically to in-source customer service, split nodes, upgrade to DOCSIS 3, etc.
I can see it now: if you're a rural cable company, a prime-minus-2% loan for $500 per customer is specifically for deployment of DOCSIS 3 to your customers. Another loan at the same rate covers the cost of getting a fiber link all the way to a location where at least two carriers have POPs. End result: rural areas get 20/5 cable internet for $70 per month, 10/2 for $50 per month, 5/1 for $30 per month, and the loan is paid off. Telcos could get an $800 per customer low interest loan to roll out fiber to customers. The result: 20/5 for $60, 10/2 for $40, 5/1 for $25, due to competition.
Also, ads that mention "fiber" on an HTC or FTTN network should be outright outlawed. Seriously people...unless your system can do 622 Mbps down and 155 Mbps up, shared between 32 or less customers, don't make any pretense that it does! | |
| |
See 9 replies to this post | |
RR Conductor
RailRoadDude
Premium
join:2002-04-02
Redwood Valley, CA
·Comcast
2 edits | The same IGNORANCE of rural needs I see the usual crap thrown about in here, mostly by people in larger cities who are completely ignorant of rural needs, or of the MAJOR contributions made by rural America (you know, things like FOOD, WATER, RAW MATERIALS, COAL, ELECTRICTY,etc.). So, since they do produce so much, should they not then see some of the same things and compensation that their bigger city friends do? Why should they be left out of the new economy? | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
MadixBM
@cisp.com
| finding availability isnt as easy as it sounds When I moved to a rural area from a heavily populated urban area I knew about the sacrifices id have to make. I didnt just decide to buy a house without doing some research first.
I looked up the availability of internet for my new house months before I ever put an offer in because I knew I wouldnt live in an area without broadband. I found out from the Charter site that they provided their best packages to the home I was planning on buying so I figured it was a done deal.
After I moved in I called up Charter to come install their internet. A few minutes after the guy got to my house he came up and told me I couldnt get any service where I lived.
As you could imagine this was a major kick in the balls.
So now Ive been stuck here for 3 years with dial up and the Charter site still says I can get broadband.
Just so you know, my house isnt exactly out in the middle of farm country. I live 2 miles from the city which happens to be populated enough to have more traffic than near my old house in Tampa. I live in Belton SC just for reference. | |
| | |
Oregon
@wildblue.net | It's a lot more than $14,000 I was quoted $27,000 to bring Comcast about 1/2 mile from where it currently ends down the street to my house. According to Comcast, that was my HALF! | |
| | | |
|
|
