Internet Org Says Rural Residents Just Don't Want BroadbandUSIIA Says Lagging Adoption, not Deployment, is Cause of Digital Divide ( old news - 02:38PM Sunday Mar 30 2008) tags: coverage · businessDavid McClure, the CEO and president of the United States Internet Industry Association ( USIIA), has penned a news report which claims that the digital divide in the United States is not caused by a lack of broadband availability but rather by slow broadband adoption. He goes so far as to say: "As of 2008, virtually every U.S. household and business has access to broadband, and even in many rural areas has a choice of broadband technologies - fiber, wireless, cellular, cable DSL or satellite. While there is still work to be done to upgrade and enhance these choices, broadband deployment is active, vibrant and successful." Although he says that the government must play a role in speeding up the Internet and continuing to ensure deployment across the nation, he insists that these efforts are far less important than educating residents about the availability of existing broadband. Those interested in what McClure has to say can review this pdf of his complete rural broadband assessment.
Related:- Will Regulators Repeat Fairpoint Mistakes With Frontier?
- 'New' FCC, Same Regulatory Rubber Stamp For CenturyLink
- Google Starts Discussion About Speeding Things Up
- FCC Greenlights Centurytel/Embarq With Wimpy Conditions
- Breakdown of 3G Network Speeds, Reliability
- The Broadband Stimulus Gets, Uh, Less Patriotic?
- Biden Unveils Broadband Stimulus
- Clearwire: We'll Hit 80 Markets In 18 Months
|
page: 1 · 2  |
 
Siryak
join:2005-11-26
 ·WildBlue
| BS!!! I STRONGLY beg to differ!!! "broadband deployment is active, vibrant and successful." Wrong again! Sorry but Satellite is a piss poor excuse for successful broadband deployment.
--
Wildblue Pro Pack / Beam 40 / Laredo NOC / Windows Vista Home Premium | |
|  | cscottm
join:2002-05-09
Kent, WA
| Re: BS!!! I agree unless that FAP thing didn't exist. Also people don't want to have to pay $80 (or whatever the price is now) for Satellite
said by Siryak  :I STRONGLY beg to differ!!! "broadband deployment is active, vibrant and successful." Wrong again! Sorry but Satellite is a piss poor excuse for successful broadband deployment. | |
| | |
Siryak
join:2005-11-26
·WildBlue
1 edit | Re: BS!!! said by cscottm :I agree unless that FAP thing didn't exist. Also people don't want to have to pay $80 (or whatever the price is now) for Satellite IMO it will still be utter and complete crap because of the latency.
Pinging google.com [64.233.167.99] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 64.233.167.99: bytes=32 time=1930ms TTL=232
Reply from 64.233.167.99: bytes=32 time=3506ms TTL=232
Reply from 64.233.167.99: bytes=32 time=1427ms TTL=232
Reply from 64.233.167.99: bytes=32 time=1626ms TTL=232
Reply from 64.233.167.99: bytes=32 time=1188ms TTL=232
Ping statistics for 64.233.167.99:
Packets: Sent = 5, Received = 5, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 1188ms, Maximum = 3506ms, Average = 1935ms | |
| | | | nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
 ·Comcast
| Re: BS!!! said by Siryak :.. Ping statistics for 64.233.167.99: Packets: Sent = 5, Received = 5, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 1188ms, Maximum = 3506ms, Average = 1935ms OUCH! | |
| | | | |
Siryak
join:2005-11-26
·WildBlue
| Re: BS!!! said by nasadude :said by Siryak :.. Ping statistics for 64.233.167.99: Packets: Sent = 5, Received = 5, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 1188ms, Maximum = 3506ms, Average = 1935ms OUCH! Yah...try doing ANYTHING interactive on that. With satellite something as simple as logging into an HTTPS website becomes a painful experience.
--
Wildblue(unfortunately) Pro Pack / Beam 40 / Laredo NOC / Windows Vista Home Premium | |
| | | | | | jc100
join:2002-04-10
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: BS!!! I had verizon DSL when I first started. Boy, you talk about latency issues! I know the feeling. It wasn't far off from you. Talk about taking ten years to do anything. My 768/128 was more like 200/128!! Best yet,it took ten years to browse as my latency was crap. While this was DSL, and you are satellite, the dissatisfaction was no different. Either way, satellite is a good backup, but nothing else. | |
| | | | | | |
Siryak
join:2005-11-26
·WildBlue
| Re: BS!!! said by jc100 :Either way, satellite is a good backup, but nothing else. No it is good for downloading!...Oh wait you get FAPped for that...Well it is good for browsing....Oh wait thats slow....umm...I got a mousepad with it...
--
Wildblue(unfortunately) Pro Pack / Beam 40 / Laredo NOC / Windows Vista Home Premium | |
| | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
1 edit | BUUUUTTT!!!! Satellite is 100% coverage. Isn't that great? FCC should ban DSL and cable internet. Satellite rocks my socks!
And dialup gives you better latency and a real connection you can use 24/7  | |
| | | | 
trparky
Bite My Shiny Metal Ass
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-24
Cleveland, OH
clubs: | Re: BS!!! You forgot your sarcasm tags there. LOL
--
Tom | |
| | | | cscottm
join:2002-05-09
Kent, WA | Ok your all right, I totally forgot about the latency. | |
| 
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
1 edit | Disqualified for Conflicting Interests USIIA is a primary trade association for companies engaged in Internet commerce, content and connectivity.
I stopped read at the 2nd page of the report when I found the above-referenced. Taking at its word any association of, by and for any given industry is like asking the fox what he thinks the hens' opinions of his raids are. Of course, the fox will say the hens think its wonderful!
--
The Toll
Let's Go Flyers!
| |
| | 
SuperJoker
join:2005-11-21
Yermo, CA
 ·Verizon Online DSL
·Verizon west (ex G..
| Re: Disqualified for Conflicting Interests said by major marco :USIIA is a primary trade association for companies engaged in Internet commerce, content and connectivity.I stopped read at the 2nd page of the report when I found the above-referenced. Taking at its word any association of, by and for any given industry is like asking the fox what he thinks the hens' opinions of his raids are. Of course, the fox will say the hens think its wonderful! Agreed, And that sounds like It's more PR than anything else.
--
(26.04GHz crunching for SETI with the PC Perspective Killer Frogs) | |
| 
ureihcim
Freshly made
join:2007-12-16
Miami, FL
| ! STFU David McClure,
If the farm boys find out you said that, they will stick a pitch fork up in the wrong spot.
On a serious note though, skimming the PDF, he does have some points but mostly it's related towards the cost of providing broadband out to these available markets. Just because the data is from a association, does not mean the report needs to be denied as plain BS.
Fiber to the thunderbox gents! | |
| | 
Fiber man
@frontiernet.net | Re: ! Indeed things would certainly speed up with more fiber in there | |
| | | 
Spazmoto
Dark Flow
join:2003-08-22 | Re: ! Oh that was good. Very good. | |
| |
Dave McClure
@direcpc.com
| Thanks for taking the time to actually read the report. As with the previous screed on it, which was posted when the report was initially released in early March, the points of the paper have been hysterically mirepresented.
Having said that, I live in a rural community, and am posting this on a satellite connection. Is it the best I can get? Not any more. But I have a contract to fulfil before I move to one of the newer broadband providers that have shown up here in the mountains in the past year.
The point of the paper is that we need to look at adoption rates as well as deployment rates if we are to move forward as a nation. Most of the data focusing on deployment is worthless because it is outdated, or sloppily confuses adoption rates with deployment rates.
You don't have to believe someone else's twisted interpretation of what it says -- the paper is short and straightforward in its own right.
Regards,
Dave McClure
USIIA | |
| | |
ureihcim
Freshly made
join:2007-12-16
Miami, FL
| Re: ! I agree with some of the things you say, but you are missing many variables in your report, and I commend you for trying.
You need much more variables like:
1. Pricing
2. Speed provided
3. city block vs zip code block
4. LISP (Land internet service providers Ex. Cable, DSL) vs WISP ( Wireless internet service providers Ex. AT&T HSDPA, Verizon EVDO, Sprint EVDO, Satellite, WiMAX, LTE)
If you look at only adoption rate from those who have the service and those you don't you will find how inaccurate that data is because of all the variables I just put into play. Mainly pricing being the key factor.
Deployment rates although they have increased and more rural customers are now getting access, yet can see plenty on this forum who still are left out in the cold and are paying plenty of money for BS services.
I suggest you get an account on this site and speak to those of the rural community so you can get a better understanding of what exactly is going on, how much they are paying and what they are using to connect. Not just on this site/forum but also your local community and surrounding areas. I am sure that information will be very valuable to you, because it will enhance your report with the missing variables and details that are needed to show that what the FCC posted, is plain BS.
You are right I don't have to believe you, and you might not even be Dave McClure, but if people are complaining here with fangs, then something is wrong and that's not included in your report.
-Michieru | |
| | | 
WiseOldNerd
De gustibus non est disputandum
Premium
join:2001-11-25
Newport, OR | Paid shills do just that. Thinking is not relevant and actually not wanted. Just say what you are told. AND DO YOU EVER!
--
My perception is REALITY | |
| | | 
danawhitaker
Space...The Final Frontier
Premium
join:2002-03-02
Urbandale, IA
·MSN
·Mediacom
| "The point of the paper is that we need to look at adoption rates as well as deployment rates if we are to move forward as a nation."
True. But at the same time, how many people avoid moving outside of the suburbs and cities today due to lack of availability of high speed internet? Broadband availability is something I've considered every place I've lived, and I would not move out of range of cable or DSL. That's about the only thing that would stop me, aside from the price of commuting today. Most of my friends from college won't live in rural areas either because of this, and it's something they're trying to promote at colleges (rural living) to encourage people in certain fields (education and medicine mainly) because many of those areas are terribly understaffed. In my experience, people who graduate around here either leave the state or stay near a city.
I doubt it's a terribly huge number, but the problem you have right now is that many rural areas are populated by older people who are going to have less of an adoption rate on new technologies that come available anyway. My aunt and uncle live out in the country, and they can't get broadband at all, but my uncle says he wouldn't bother anyway if he could. If you have enough people refusing to move out to rural areas because they can't get broadband (good broadband, not crappy capped satellite), you won't get the target market of people who would *adopt* broadband living in that area. You have to have availability to draw people, but you have to have people to draw the service out there. It's a bit of a conundrum. If you build it, maybe they'll come. If I were in the market for a house, and saw a development outside of the city with substantially lower prices than in the city *and* cable and DSL access..I'd be on it like syrup on pancakes.
--
You're watching Sports Night on CSC so stick around... | |
| 
RR206
join:2001-12-11
Renton, WA
clubs: | Not worth it. Emotions aside (which is what this debate is almost always based on), spending millions to push broadband to rural areas for such a small subscriber base just isn't worth it. Sorry. Plus the definition of "rural" varies from state to state. | |
| |
Siryak
join:2005-11-26
·WildBlue
| Re: Not worth it. said by RR206 :spending millions to push broadband to rural areas for such a small subscriber base just isn't worth it. Sorry. Easy to say when you already have it. 
--
Wildblue(unfortunately) Pro Pack / Beam 40 / Laredo NOC / Windows Vista Home Premium | |
| | goalieskates
join:2004-09-12
Knoxville, TN
·Knology
·Comcast
| said by RR206 :Emotions aside (which is what this debate is almost always based on), spending millions to push broadband to rural areas for such a small subscriber base just isn't worth it. Sorry. Plus the definition of "rural" varies from state to state. Spoken like a company man. | |
| | 
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by RR206 :Emotions aside (which is what this debate is almost always based on), spending millions to push broadband to rural areas for such a small subscriber base just isn't worth it. Sorry. Plus the definition of "rural" varies from state to state. they said that about electricity, phone and and roads too. do you know how much WORSE our economy would be if people in the boonie still didn't have access to electricity and phone service or good roads?
people in the city say stupid crap like "Move out of the boonies" do they really mean that? What if everyone in the boonies did that? In live in the "city" a very small city but I do have access to both cable and DSL. Now if everyone moved out of the boonies the and moved to the city? The local popualtion would increase nearly 4 fold. Now how much more would my taxes increase to pay for the needed infrustructure improvements to support such a population increase? FAR more than giving these guys access to broadband that's for sure. Sometimes it helps to look at the BIGGER picture. | |
| | | | | xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: Not worth it. said by insomniac :I don't really buy that argument. High deployment costs? Charge more for service and/or don't offer the highest speeds. Sounds pretty simple to me. Those who want it will pay for it anyway. My parents pay $30/month for 256Kbps DSL from their rural telco, and even though it's 256Kbps, it still beats dialup. (3Mbps service would cost them $40/month, and my mom is not interested in paying that much.) In suburban Chicago, I pay $35/month for 6Mbps DSL from AT&T. Hell, a basic phone line costs them twice as much as it costs me. This is the way it works in rural areas. It works the same way in urban areas...
ATT does the same thing. They won't upgrade our terminal to deliver 6 mb in chicago (my neighborhood at least). Paying close to 35 for 3 Mbps in an MDU no less.
Unlike ATT, a smaller company will likely have less economies of scale in which to get purchasing discounts and a sizable enough customer base to spread those costs over at a return that is palatable.
Nevertheless, HSI speeds are very much driven by technology.
If it makes sense to install a terminal than can deliver 8 mbps, companies will do it. If the infrastructure exists to deliver 1.5 mbps, that's what happens, in my experience. Once the infrastructure has been updgraded, it will tend to sit in place until competition requires an upgrade or it has earned its return.
ATT, on the other hand, might well be responding to competition in your market (don't know), with losses and/or returns not meeting expectations but customer retention overriding the former requirements (with a contract of course).
Keep in mind, even with competition in your market, price cutting beyond the ability to profitably deliver service will end with the same outcome as Aloha Airlines. Pure competition means cheap prices but at the cost of "universal service". Difficult to be small and price the same as the big companies. It is quite possible that your parents will be off the grid if they can't/won't pay the internet bill when the lowest high cost provider goes under.
We've finally entered a new era of competition, but short of multiple local competitors, I'm not personally comfortable that prices won't begin increasing (we're hooked on the net now - it's the new cable tv). Nevertheless, the only areas seeing significant investment from the telephone company side are those where video is seen as a large enough cash flow to deliver mid-term profitability.
p.s. your local service rate might well be double mine and you are within 20 miles of me, go figure. | |
| | | | |
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Re: Not worth it. said by RR206 :I'm just saying. Investment to return ration isn't hight enough. ISPs are businesses, public businesses at that. They are in it to make money, not friends. Until a proposal is made for local government to subsidize deployment, and citizens vote up a tax increase for that purpose on a wide scale, it's not likely to change. Um...... USF.....cough...cough
I'm not sure of the history of electricity & phone lines, but I'm pretty sure it didn't make it out to the rural areas until the government pitched in. Yep, but aren't we all better off( and so are the telcos ) it did. | |
| | | | xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: Not worth it. said by BF69 :said by RR206 :I'm just saying. Investment to return ration isn't hight enough. ISPs are businesses, public businesses at that. They are in it to make money, not friends. Until a proposal is made for local government to subsidize deployment, and citizens vote up a tax increase for that purpose on a wide scale, it's not likely to change. Um...... USF.....cough...cough Pays for telephone service infrastructure. No doubt there is heavy lobbying going on to create funds specifically for broadband. Internet access (broadband) is not telephone service. I'm not sure of the history of electricity & phone lines, but I'm pretty sure it didn't make it out to the rural areas until the government pitched in. Yep, but aren't we all better off( and so are the telcos ) it did. Nah. Universal service benefited ATT, by granting them a monopoly.
Most small telephone companies started out the same way as ISPs back in the 90's did...independent and party lines (shared local lines). REA helped some with financing, but the advent of local telephone companies was chaotic, no one interconnected..I think there is a web site called abelltolls, or something similar, that has a decent history of how we got (and how we are heading back into) where we were/are (going).
I guess one could say the 90's ISPs leached off the small and big telcos in the same manner as the small telephone companies leached off the big telephone companies and att in the old days. Course..the big telephone companies and att were basically the same until the 80's (and again in the 00's).
Like a giant soap opera!
A little digging around will prove that the cable companies aren't any more investor-funded than telephone companies.
Comcast: Brought to you by ATT Broadband | |
| | 
Richard B
Fur It Up
join:2007-06-22
Portland, OR
·Comcast
| There was a review who said despairingly about the film Patch Addams is every time there wanted a sentimental moment they roll out a sick child. In the same way when the gamer urbanite want to promote an new entitlement the roll out a farmer. Has anyone bother to ask the rural person? | |
| | | xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: Ask a rural person! After speaking to a rural telephone guy about their DSL speeds, (thinking my 3 meg kicked but), his response was
"we give everyone up to 8 meg, the bandwidth usage is predictable, but we get a number of complaints about the upload speed". This was 4 years ago...and no major torrent users. Funny how those rural folks want to upload their digital photos to walmart in a timely fashion...
In their case, it was a technology issue at the time.
I don't see much in the way of any provider to deal with this 4 years later... urban or rural
said by Richard B :There was a review who said despairingly about the film Patch Addams is every time there wanted a sentimental moment they roll out a sick child. In the same way when the gamer urbanite want to promote an new entitlement the roll out a farmer. Has anyone bother to ask the rural person? | |
| macflauaus
join:2005-10-08
Nashville, IL
| Ugh... People Like This Make Me Mad Does he not reallize that satellite isn't even a broadband service anymore, according to the FCC's new "2Mbit = Broadband" policy? Neither is most cellular services either.
Yeah, us "hicks" in the boonies don't give a damn about broadband at all. Seriously McClure, WTF are you smoking? | |
| |
See 9 replies to this post | |
| |
See 22 replies to this post | |
NickD
Premium
join:2000-11-17
Princeton Junction, NJ
clubs: | It's not satellite's fault Latency isn't the fault of the satellite providers. It's only there because the speed of light is too slow. The satellite can't be lower than 23000 miles or else it won't be geostationary. | |
| | 
shoe1
join:2007-09-28
Colfax, CA
| Re: It's not satellite's fault Yeah...I suppose it's not satellite providers for the enforcement of strict FAP policy that not even regular internet user can abide by...And traffic shaping that DOUBLES THE LATENCY! because of this ftp rarely works nor p2p. satellite and provided lag of around 700ms...which isn't too bad but they intentionally add 500-700ms lag to it....Ya it's there fault. | |
| |
Siryak
join:2005-11-26
·WildBlue
| said by NickD :Latency isn't the fault of the satellite providers. It's only there because the speed of light is too slow. The satellite can't be lower than 23000 miles or else it won't be geostationary. WRONG! The distance only accounts for appr. 480ms of the latency. The rest of it is their BS traffic shaping software.
Pinging google.com [72.14.207.99] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 72.14.207.99: bytes=32 time=1239ms TTL=231
Reply from 72.14.207.99: bytes=32 time=2951ms TTL=231
Reply from 72.14.207.99: bytes=32 time=1151ms TTL=231
Reply from 72.14.207.99: bytes=32 time=1182ms TTL=231
Reply from 72.14.207.99: bytes=32 time=2511ms TTL=231
Ping statistics for 72.14.207.99:
Packets: Sent = 5, Received = 5, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 1151ms, Maximum = 2951ms, Average = 1806ms
--
Wildblue(unfortunately) Pro Pack / Beam 40 / Laredo NOC / Windows Vista Home Premium | |
| | | 
elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO | Re: It's not satellite's fault geostationary is ~half a sec up and half a sec back down
+ any processing the bird has to do and your looking at almost 1500ms right there + any lag once you hit land lines | |
| | | |
Siryak
join:2005-11-26
·WildBlue
| Re: It's not satellite's fault said by elios :geostationary is ~half a sec up and half a sec back down + any processing the bird has to do and your looking at almost 1500ms right there + any lag once you hit land lines Again WRONG! It is apr. 120ms up 120ms down, then 120ms back up and 120ms back down again making an apr. round trip of 480ms. | |
|
StockHolder
@comcast.net
| Put in perspective... it is far more important to bail out Bear Stearns and its wealthy chairman than to deliver broadband to a bunch of wage-slave taxpayers out in the sticks. So you country folk, shut up and get back to work so you can help pay for the uber intelligent city slickers latest phuck up.
»blog.wired.com/business/2008/03/···sen.html | |
| | Headtalk
join:2001-08-17 | Re: Put in perspective... Right on Brother.... | |
|
Meh37
@verizon.net | Almost funny... He must get his info straight from the FCC. | |
| 
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | They want it, they just want someone else to pay for it Simple. | |
|
idontknowjack
@t-ipconnect.de | Far enough away I guess this is proof that the more "rural" you get, the less you want. | |
| 
ninjatutle
Premium
join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA | Why I recken they don't want it either. . | |
| 
dslwanter
Why would I want DSL? I have FTTH
Premium
join:2002-12-16
Lowellville, OH
·Armstrong Zoom In..
·AT&T Midwest
| Coming from a rural area First off, how can rural residents adapt to something they've never been exposed to? My township has been fighting the no broadband battle for years, and thankfully it's about to come to an end as Armstrong Cable is almost done with our fiber optic network. In 2003 when SBC (Now AT&T) installed a DSLAM in the Lowellville Central Office, a few of us (and I mean a few, probably not even 10) qualified for basic DSL. Some of us ordered and got denied service, others managed to get it pushed through. Service is terribly unreliable and we always get the "if it wasn't for us you wouldn't have broadband" attitude.
If DSL or Cable was $69.95 a month, I gurantee you AOL would still be thriving today. Just because we live out in the country, doesn't mean we're filthy rich. We're not going to pay that much for broadband. If so, I wouldn't have tried every which way to finally get DSL back in 2004 when I was able to push SBC to give it to me. I would've said f**k it and went with satellite. I'm sorry but something in excess of 400ms can't even be considered "broadband". On a decent cable or DSL line you're not going to see more than 50ms.
--
Need a DJ within 60 miles of Youngstown, OH? Check out my service: »www.thebomb102djservice.com | |
| |
WhyUS
@harvard.edu
| Re: Coming from a rural area As a rural 'customer' and IT professional the reason for poor adoption is COST I paid 69.95 initially for 768/384 which usually delivers about 25% of that for throughput I now pay $99.95 for the ability to of support a VPN to my office after the telco got greedy and decided VPN requires "business class" . I am one of the fortunate few who can even get DSL in the country but I am tired of "its not needed/wanted"
I am well aware that link speed != throughput but most farm area rural customers simply do not have the disposable income for a luxury like broadband for most dialup and AOL serve as they are affordable and they serve for casual surfing and email. | |
| | xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
| said by dslwanter :First off, how can rural residents adapt to something they've never been exposed to? If they've been exposes to dial up, they know they want it faster. It isn't a rural or urban thing, it is a human thing.
said by dslwanter :My township has been fighting the no broadband battle for years, and thankfully it's about to come to an end as Armstrong Cable is almost done with our fiber optic network. Curious, what does the township have to do with it, short of granting right of ways?
said by dslwanter :If DSL or Cable was $69.95 a month, I gurantee you AOL would still be thriving today. Just because we live out in the country, doesn't mean we're filthy rich. We're not going to pay that much for broadband. If so, I wouldn't have tried every which way to finally get DSL back in 2004 when I was able to push SBC to give it to me. I would've said f**k it and went with satellite. I'm sorry but something in excess of 400ms can't even be considered "broadband". On a decent cable or DSL line you're not going to see more than 50ms. That explains Netzero's continuing success.
Interestingly enough, latency and broadband are not the same. Think broadband is the size of the throughput, latency is delivery time..or for the lame road analogy, your 4 lane highway is less useful than a 1 lane highway if it is more congested....or the lamer package delivery system that can fill their truck with all the packages you can stuff in it but they can't get em all on the airplanes for delivery due to lack of space on the existing airplaces. | |
| | |
dslwanter
Why would I want DSL? I have FTTH
Premium
join:2002-12-16
Lowellville, OH
·Armstrong Zoom In..
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: Coming from a rural area I meant township to describe the general area. It's not our officials that were blocking broadband from being deployed. We were stuck in a contract with a lame cable company and we have the country's most arrogant phone company. So we were shunned for broadband.
Rural residents know that faster is out there, however they don't know just how good it really is.
Your theory on the highway and congestion is good. I agree.
--
Need a DJ within 60 miles of Youngstown, OH? Check out my service: »www.thebomb102djservice.com | |
| | | | xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: Coming from a rural area said by dslwanter :I meant township to describe the general area. It's not our officials that were blocking broadband from being deployed. We were stuck in a contract with a lame cable company and we have the country's most arrogant phone company. So we were shunned for broadband. OK, I wasn't sure. It sounded as if they politicos were blocking choice (wouldn't be that surprising (legal blackmail).
I bet that arrogant telephone company will be offering higher speeds at rock bottom prices  | |
| lvlorpheus
join:2008-02-17
Eureka Springs, AR
| No kadavers for you! Boy, am I glad this dumb ass is in IT and not the medical field. It's a lot easier to lean and see the benefits of something hands on, than just because I tell you. I am glad doctors learn on kadavers first instead of on us based on what they were told. This guy needs to get real. Does this guy really think graduating and drop out students of the next 5, 10, 15, 20, ... years are not going to know the benefits of broadband and want to be able to have it in their homes? Does this idiot think he can he can teach the nations grandmother to change a master, slave hard drive by telling them about it, or would the understanding and take rate increase exponentially if someone showed them how easy it was? Yes there is a learning curve that needs to be addressed, you don't teach someone to read without the book. | |
| | 
jlsamsel
join:2006-08-26
Stixville
 ·Cingular Wireless
| Nooooo, no one wants it Dial-up through AT&T costs $22 (if you don't have certain packages-gets cheaper if you do) and you'd be lucky to get 16 kbps. DSL, on the other hand, for new customers, is $10 for 768 kbps...IF it's available in your area. Not a new DSL customer? $20.
And no one would want either?
We're country, not stupid.
I've gone the satellite route twice, once with Hughes on one-way, and once with Starband for send & receive. Hughes USED to work until '06, but Starband was always lousy for me.
Right now, I'm on EDGE, tethering, and pay $60 a month for speeds that can barely hit 200/40 kbps. I'd gladly pay that same amount-EXCEPT to satellite-for 512, 768, or 1 MB, be it wired or wireless, EVDO, whatever. It's much, much, more than what others pay for higher speeds, but just to have that access would make me happy.
Who offers those services here?
No one.
--
Hulloooo, Zeba Neighba... | |
| 
powerhog
Stinkin' up the joint
Premium
join:2000-12-14
Owasso, OK
·AtlasOK
| Ho hum... Every time this idiot writes a report, you can bet that it's chock full of "facts". But he includes only those "facts" that support his masters.
So once again, I offer up the services of the ILEC for my area:
»www.totelcsi.com/services/res/dsl.html
I bet most urban dwellers would pass up on a "Premium" 512kbs connection for $54 (+taxes & fees) too. | |
| | Lineage
rawr?
Premium
join:2006-10-19
USA | Re: Ho hum... I would pay $80/month for just 128k both ways. (man that ISDN I used to have was awesome :\) | |
| |
Siryak
join:2005-11-26
·WildBlue
| said by powerhog :Every time this idiot writes a report, you can bet that it's chock full of "facts". But he includes only those "facts" that support his masters. So once again, I offer up the services of the ILEC for my area: » www.totelcsi.com/services/res/dsl.htmlI bet most urban dwellers would pass up on a "Premium" 512kbs connection for $54 (+taxes & fees) too. Personally I would jump on that like a chicken on a Cheeto!
--
Wildblue(unfortunately) Pro Pack / Beam 40 / Laredo NOC / Windows Vista Home Premium | |
| |
powerhog
Stinkin' up the joint
Premium
join:2000-12-14
Owasso, OK
·AtlasOK
| Yeah, some of us would/will/do pay for it. But you can't expect wide-spread adoption from the general public at those prices.
As an FYI, I pay $65 for my 1Mbps WISP connection since I live too far out of town for DSL. It's worth every penny to not have to suffer on satellite or dial-up again. | |
| | | xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: Ho hum... Who thought we would pay 25 dollars a month for dial up to AOL back in the day (and wait for graphic downloads at whatever speeds our modems would train at)? 1.20 an hour to play online text based poker (not me) after our 20 hour premium package expired on another service?
The irony is that I was logging into a packet network back then, no different than today...those were good days, but then again, today is tomorrow's good days.
We all feel like we are overpaying, yet we keep writing the check.
*I hate top posters*
said by powerhog :Yeah, some of us would/will/do pay for it. But you can't expect wide-spread adoption from the general public at those prices. As an FYI, I pay $65 for my 1Mbps WISP connection since I live too far out of town for DSL. It's worth every penny to not have to suffer on satellite or dial-up again. | |
|
Jaakee
@rr.com
| No Go I was trying to fix a T1 to a cellsite, when I pulled into a Remote Term (RT) site when a pickup truck stopped and asked if we could provide broadband? There was a fiber feed mux at the site and the DLC system could be converted to at least 1.5Mb service. Most of the land within sight was farmland except a house a few hundred feet away. I had to call him back after talking to engineering and tell him no more systems would be deployed this year. The equipment needed to upgrade is being taken out of RTs in the areas where Iptv is being deployed. The ROI must not be good enough. Tons of money is spent upgrading over and over in the big cities but semi rural areas get nothing. Even parts of small towns meaning more than 10 thousand people can't get BrdBnd if they are past the first load coil. | |
| | xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: No Go You hit the nail on the head for the larger companies.
They will constantly upgrade where there is competition.
On the other hand, I have to wonder why they don't recycle the replaced & retired plant to remote locations (move the lower speed DSL to the remote sites with no DSL).
Power issues?
Labor costs?
Cabinet issues?
Corporate idiots (plenty of those examples I'm sure)
Can't imagine the BOCs are pulling out existing infrastructure without moving it to other areas, but then big corporations do things that don't always make sense...
said by Jaakee :
I was trying to fix a T1 to a cellsite, when I pulled into a Remote Term (RT) site when a pickup truck stopped and asked if we could provide broadband? There was a fiber feed mux at the site and the DLC system could be converted to at least 1.5Mb service. Most of the land within sight was farmland except a house a few hundred feet away. I had to call him back after talking to engineering and tell him no more systems would be deployed this year. The equipment needed to upgrade is being taken out of RTs in the areas where Iptv is being deployed. The ROI must not be good enough. Tons of money is spent upgrading over and over in the big cities but semi rural areas get nothing. Even parts of small towns meaning more than 10 thousand people can't get BrdBnd if they are past the first load coil.
| |
|
Mr Kentucky
@alltel.net | I disagree.. I'll just say that I disagree with this man about his statement here
"broadband deployment is active, vibrant and successful."
I would say its the exact opposite. *He must be going by what the fed government considers "Broadband"* | |
| decifal
join:2007-03-10
Bon Aqua, TN | worthless David McClure has absolutely not real down to earth idea on wtf hes talking about obviously! Again another worthless bought and paid for political monkey that deserves to swing.. God wtf is wrong with these people. | |
| | | |
|
|
·
. People that are mad because they can't pirate their favorite porn shows in less than 5 minutes should be banned to hell. I hear people complaining all the time about how their 10/1 connection is too slow, and then I make them use my AT&T EDGE connection which is about 60k/23k