said by pspcrazy :

Exactly lol, jobless, bored, and can't find a job? Go online and try to find one... and watch youtube videos while waiting.

said by Matt :

This is further proof that for the vast majority of people, broadband has become a utility. There will always be people who don't require it -- however, just like you don't require power, (the Amish do just fine without it) it is absolutely a requirement for the vast majority of the population.

said by me1212 :

one cable one FTTH one wireless. And thats all I can think of for now.

said by tubbynet :

you keep looking for ftth to be the solution to all of the problems. go ahead, ask an incumbent how willing they are to run fiber to rural locations in iowa, missouri, nebraska, kansas, etc. they won't be.
we have to come to a realization the ftth is probably not going to happen outside of areas that have a high roi. even in the phoenix metro area (population estimated around 4.3 million as of 2008 link here) which is the 12th largest metro area in the states, i doubt i will ever see ftth within the next ten years.
maybe after a few years and the cost for the actual buildout (fiber, onts, splicing, trenching) has dropped to the point where the roi for deployment is a matter of a year or so, will everyone see it. otherwise, you will be hoping for a long time...

q.

said by me1212 :

I was just using that cause its speeds can go toe to toe with cable, unlike DSL.

said by iansltx :

Actually, it's just the big phone companies that aren't embracing fiber. Take a look at a dozen telephone coops, and you'll see that most of the more urban ones are...guess what...running FTTH. If your provider isn't running fiber anywhere, they're lame. Period.

said by iansltx :

you'll see that most of the more urban ones are

said by iansltx :

So no, it's not FTTH; the copper there works just fine. However it is MUCH better than the nearest competition, whichw ill probably do exactly nothing in the near future to...uh...compete in the area.

said by me1212 :

I think you misunderstood me, I meant FTTH IF the Gov(we) pay for it.

said by me1212 :

Net neutrality is a must. 1TB caps like in Japan(or no cap at all, unless they give me REAL data that show we NEED caps I will always be against them. If we get a real broadband package from DC I hope they have a no caps clause, if we pay for them they should not get to skrew us) More than 2 providers in one area=win one cable one FTTH one wireless. And thats all I can think of for now.

said by Matt :

This is further proof that for the vast majority of people, broadband has become a utility. There will always be people who don't require it -- however, just like you don't require power, (the Amish do just fine without it) it is absolutely a requirement for the vast majority of the population.

said by dadkins :

For many, yes. They/We may consider it a Utility.
Problem for *us*, the majority still don't see it as one and well, the mob rules.
Then there are the providers that really want to stay away from regulation and standards across the board.
They want to keep people paying as much as possible for as little as possible.

Metered Billing as with any other utility... I wouldn't mind!

said by Matt :

And a free government handout isn't the solution.

said by TKJunkMail :

As the numbers show, broadband growth in the US is doing just fine without government spending billions to make it grow. Maybe some of the billions in the incentive bill could be used for something else - like reducing the government deficit.

said by Matt :

There will come a point where the remaining market is people who simply can't afford it or who don't have it available to them. Will the big boys deploy to them at that point? Perhaps, but I would bet no.

said by Matt :

This is further proof that for the vast majority of people, broadband has become a utility.

said by pnh102 :

As someone who does not believe that broadband is a utility, I would like to know how you reached that conclusion.

said by S_engineer :

First of all, if it was "categorized" as a utility, it could be regulated through some sort of PUC where rate increases would have to justified through verification of a carriers costs rather than out of a whim. Furthermore, caps could also be defined as a cost so implementation of caps would have to be scrutinized through verification of need before applied. Plus, you'd have the added advantage of a uniform broadband policy....nice concept.. huh?

said by pnh102 :

Yup. Then my broadband bill can go up every year just like my water, electric and sewer bills do. My cable internet bill has remained the same every year with the service improving during that time.

said by S_engineer :

You can't say your price has remained the same if your forced into subscribing to a service thats rates have constantly gone up (TV)!