FCC voted to subsidize rural broadband through the Connect America Fund

[chucky2]

You want 400 megabits per subscriber to call them adequately covered? What are you smoking and where can I get some?

Ok, that was doubly my fault. First fault was brain farting the B vs b (I know the difference yet still made the error, doh!), second fault was scope creeping somewhat the needed rate. A 50Mbps rate would be nice though, even higher if possible. The thing is, whatever wired solution that would get employed would essentially be EOL'd once it was put in. It'd be the last wired solution any of these folks would see. Hence, whatever gets put in needs to be implemented with the future timeframe it needs to cover in mind. Things like 2 people doing VPN + video stream, 3D quadHD at compression rates that don't cut into video quality, etc. are going to require high levels of stability and speed. I'd rather spend the Billions the Gov is taking from our telecomm bills building, once, that will support that, rather than keeping analog phone going.

When I say "wireless", I'm not talking about cellular wireless. That's old news and isn't appropriate for a fixed-configuration subscriber model. Wireless costs for equipment are going way down. Like I said, I can put up a microcell for about $300 and a full-blown sectored site for about $2000 (less the cost of tower space). That's pretty damn cheap.

OK, that was where I was confusing things. I was thinking you were saying consumer cell was going to get us to being able to support things like the above in my reply.

Contrast that with $15k PER MILE to extend wireline services (fiber). Yes, it'd be great<snip...>

Expensive, Yes, but long term worth it given the consumer opportunities it opens up, along with education (not just for kids), access, and allowance of abandoning cities? How much would it cost to cover all but the most insane rural runs? $30B? $40B? Seems like a cheap major one time cost that from an infrastructure perspective solves basically all telecomm related issues going forward, at least for as long as the infrastructure lasts.

If the wireless technologies you're talking about were made more dense could they up the speeds?

Chuck

 

[JSt0rm]

No, I live next to a major highway and just a few miles from the center of town, there is NO reason for fiberoptic not to be running through here.




This shows your arrogance, you think the US owns the name "America". Ever hear of North America, Central America and South America?

I do not give care about fiberoptic running through Brazil, but I do care about the US Government building infrastructure.

Private business has refused to build areas for high speed internet, I think it goes past "the free market at work".



Good, now maybe parts of the US can step into the 21st century.



If can have comforts of the 21st century, then so should everyone else.

Oh so you want government intervention when it helps you but not when it helps others? Got it.

 

[Craig234]

I did read, you just suck at writing.

You're an idiot and after incivility and a long string of idiocy go on ignore.

 

[chucky2]

Well, to be fair, if they built the infrastructure it'd be useful, and useful for years to come. Where-as with something like, oh, 3rd generation poor people buying steaks and lobster tails with their food cards, that helps....well, it helps them, the business owner, and the political machine that allows it, and essentially F's the taxpayer.

Both are taking from the whole to help the few, but you do understand the difference right?

 

[piasabird]

I dont think the map is very accurate. However, any location that is not densely populated may not have broadband. Even a lot of smaller towns may not have enough population to make it profitable to support some company investing in Broadband. The morale of the story is if you want broadband, live somewhere it is already found. If you choose to live out of town then maybe you will not have broadband. There is no constitutional right to broadband. A couple years ago, I could not get a DSL connection. The cost of getting broadband up in an area near you is quite a lot. In many areas the Phone company are replacing the old switches with new. Only when they replace the old switches can they afford to upgrade the area to DSL. The switches are so expensive they borrow money to buy them and since they last 10 years or more, implementation is slow. Even then you have to be within a few miles of DSL Switch. There are lots of people who probably can get Phone access but not Broadband.

 

[piasabird]

I did not vote for FCC appointees, so the FCC is not allowed to levy Taxes.

I might be open to sreading out broadand in some ways. However, whatever the Government does will probably be a complete failure.

Get a Satelite dish system and share it with your neighbors and split the cost. Make some small Broadband Coop's!

 

[DrPizza]

I dont think the map is very accurate. However, any location that is not densely populated may not have broadband. Even a lot of smaller towns may not have enough population to make it profitable to support some company investing in Broadband. The morale of the story is if you want broadband, live somewhere it is already found. If you choose to live out of town then maybe you will not have broadband. There is no constitutional right to broadband. A couple years ago, I could not get a DSL connection. The cost of getting broadband up in an area near you is quite a lot. In many areas the Phone company are replacing the old switches with new. Only when they replace the old switches can they afford to upgrade the area to DSL. The switches are so expensive they borrow money to buy them and since they last 10 years or more, implementation is slow. Even then you have to be within a few miles of DSL Switch. There are lots of people who probably can get Phone access but not Broadband.

When I purchased my house, I checked with Verizon about DSL. DSL was available for my house. I checked online, and talked to a representative. That was actually something I had factored into the decision. After closing, during the first week living there, I ordered DSL. Then, it wasn't available, "right now" but was planned to be available by (I think it was "April.") Fast forward a few months and it still wasn't available. Then, Verizon stated, "Sorry, we've changed our minds. We're not going to be rolling out any more DSL. We're upgrading to fiber."

So, whose fault is it that I moved to somewhere that broadband isn't available?? Are you suggesting that I should get a job in a different school district and move?

 

[Texashiker]

Oh so you want government intervention when it helps you but not when it helps others? Got it.

No, I want government to fill gaps that the free market leaves.

Shouldn't rural areas have access to health care, hospitals, roads and internet just like everyone else?

 

[brandonb]

I need to quote this. Seriously, what the hell? The data plan on my phone is 50mb per month and I've never once gone over that. I read this forum on it every day on the bus going to work then home from work. I also use my phone to read and post stuff on facebook. Every day.

200mb is only small if you're trying to stream porn. Then yeah it's only like an hour of porn, and that's not enough for me.

Great, your phone uses mobile webpages which use alot less bandwidth.

I just loaded : newegg.com, cnn.com, espn.com, then came to anandtech, forums, p&n, quoted your message and guess what. I've downloaded nearly 10 megs of data, or 5&#37; of my allocated satellite cap in less than 2 minutes. If I was on dialup, it would have taken me 20 minutes to do that. WTH indeed.

 

[PingSpike]

When I purchased my house, I checked with Verizon about DSL. DSL was available for my house. I checked online, and talked to a representative. That was actually something I had factored into the decision. After closing, during the first week living there, I ordered DSL. Then, it wasn't available, "right now" but was planned to be available by (I think it was "April.") Fast forward a few months and it still wasn't available. Then, Verizon stated, "Sorry, we've changed our minds. We're not going to be rolling out any more DSL. We're upgrading to fiber."

So, whose fault is it that I moved to somewhere that broadband isn't available?? Are you suggesting that I should get a job in a different school district and move?

Same thing happened to me with comcast essentially. I should have known better than to trust their website and call center reps though.

 

[PingSpike]

Get a Satelite dish system and share it with your neighbors and split the cost. Make some small Broadband Coop's!

...I already complained about this option, but suffice it to say satellite systems are sufficiently awful when one user is sharing them. If you tried that with just a few neighbors its a safe bet it would be locked in throttled mode 100&#37; of the time.

 

[Spikesoldier]

now my artificially inflated bill from the non-competing telecom company can increase more!

thanks, obama!

 

[ndmrpwr]

I find all this bickering funny. I live in Idahos 3rd largest city. I am to far from the co to get decent dsl, have tried wisp (it sucked for reliability) am now on cable. Cable is ok but setting on the pole outside my house is a fiber node only availble for business at $1000 a month. Sure wish it would open up here!

 

[SparkyJJO]

You act as if the only people who don't have broadband are living like isolated hermits out in the forest. There are whole communities, large regions that don't have it. It isn't cost efficient for entire communities and regions to move to where the infrustructure is. It's far less expensive to bring the infrastructure there. So far as the evil gubment doing it, that I suspect is your real issue here. It's ideological.

I don't recall anyone complaining about government building roads to connect less densely populated areas with the rest of the nation. I fail to see the distinction here. High bandwidth access is increasingly vital.

Roads and broadband are NOT the same, so please stop using that analogy. It fails on too many levels. Roads are a necessity. Broadband is not.

If these communities you speak of want broadband, they should get the quote for how much it will cost to get it there, then raise the money themselves to get it taken care of. Running internet connections out to the middle of nowhere is not the federal government's job. LOCAL governments, sure, they can do that if they wish, as they have to raise the money from the people in the area that will be affected and benefit from this. But using FEDERAL money? No.

 

[davmat787]

I am really conflicted on this issue. More and more I am of the opinion that broadband is becoming a utility or infrastructure. So many education and business opportunities immediately become available once broadband is. Look to the interest in Googles sponsored fiber rollout that (Topeka?) was recently awarded.

For those saying broadband is not a necessary part of today's life, I dare you to try going without it for a month or two. Sure, you will not die but I know I wouldn't want to go without.

 

[Texashiker]

Roads and broadband are NOT the same, so please stop using that analogy. It fails on too many levels. Roads are a necessity. Broadband is not.

Wow, just wow, your ignorance is amazing.

High speed infrastructure is a necessity, this includes everything from transferring medical records to voice-over-ip.

There have been several times in recent history when the phone lines were overloaded due to an approaching hurricane. The only way I was able to communicate with friends and family members was over the internet.

Doctors offices are being required to go to electronic medical records, and they are being required to tie in E-Script. If the federal government is going to mandate doctors offices go to ELRs, then the offices need access to high speed internet.

Saying high speed internet is not a necessity, is probably the same thing people said about rural power back in the 1940s and 1950s. People have lived for tens of thousands of years without power, who needs it now? Rural people don't need power, let them use kerosene lamps like they have been doing for the past 100 years.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

The free market at work.

Who gets to decide which ISP providers are allowed to setup in his market area?


Hint:It isn't the free market that blocks out competing ISP providers in rural or urban areas.

 

[SparkyJJO]

Wow, just wow, your ignorance is amazing.

High speed infrastructure is a necessity, this includes everything from transferring medical records to voice-over-ip.

There have been several times in recent history when the phone lines were overloaded due to an approaching hurricane. The only way I was able to communicate with friends and family members was over the internet.

Doctors offices are being required to go to electronic medical records, and they are being required to tie in E-Script. If the federal government is going to mandate doctors offices go to ELRs, then the offices need access to high speed internet.

Saying high speed internet is not a necessity, is probably the same thing people said about rural power back in the 1940s and 1950s. People have lived for tens of thousands of years without power, who needs it now? Rural people don't need power, let them use kerosene lamps like they have been doing for the past 100 years.

Maybe I should rephrase what I said. Broadband is not a necessity for individuals.

YES some kinds of places need it (IT companies, hospitals, etc), but point me to a hospital that does not have the necessary communications and broadband connection. I don't know of any (but I don't pretend to know of all hospitals either).

But, if you want to stick with the poor road analogy, I do believe most rural roads are the responsibility of their respective counties, NOT the federal government. Which goes back to my prior comments (which you seem to have ignored?) about how the LOCAL governments most certainly can do such things as improving their own infrastructure. And I'll bet that some of the more remote hospitals have their broadband connections partly thanks to working out a deal with the ISP and the local government body.

 

[Aikouka]

For those saying broadband is not a necessary part of today's life, I dare you to try going without it for a month or two. Sure, you will not die but I know I wouldn't want to go without.

I understand what you're trying to get at with this, but are we truly discussing necessity or simply how much we've ingrained the Internet into our daily lives? Data-heavy services such as YouTube and Netflix, while providing a source of entertainment, are technically not necessities in our life.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

No, I want government to fill gaps that the free market leaves.

Shouldn't rural areas have access to health care, hospitals, roads and internet just like everyone else?

Problem isn't that the free market isn't filling the "gap" it is that most local governments are the ones who decide which ISP providers setup shop in your area and this is the reasons why so many areas are stuck with only 1 shitty service provider vs having the option of competing bidders in the market. Worse yet is that now government is going to pick winners and losers in the ISP market and create a situation where 1 big ISP will win out against others smaller entities seeking to provide better and cheaper services in your area.

 

[davmat787]

I understand what you're trying to get at with this, but are we truly discussing necessity or simply how much we've ingrained the Internet into our daily lives? Data-heavy services such as YouTube and Netflix, while providing a source of entertainment, are technically not necessities in our life.

Ingrained vs. necessity is a fair an important distinction to the point I was making, thank you. However, I was not thinking of youtube and netflix, more of things like banking, bill paying, education, communication, etc. And even each one of those could be shot down. What I am getting at I suppose is just how much easier and more efficient broadband can make one, in addition to the opportunities it allows. As these continue to increase between those with and without broadband, at what point does it become a virtual necessity then?

 

[SparkyJJO]

Ingrained vs. necessity is a fair an important distinction to the point I was making, thank you. However, I was not thinking of youtube and netflix, more of things like banking, bill paying, education, communication, etc. And even each one of those could be shot down. What I am getting at I suppose is just how much easier and more efficient broadband can make one, in addition to the opportunities it allows. As these continue to increase between those with and without broadband, at what point does it become a virtual necessity then?

I can and have done online banking, bill paying, education, and communication over a cell signal. Broadband requirement not found.

I see 3G and 4G being the higher speed connectivity available to rural places as cell providers upgrade their towers.

 

[Texashiker]

I do believe most rural roads are the responsibility of their respective counties, NOT the federal government.

When I buy gas, I have no say so where those tax dollars go. Do the tax dollars go to the state, to the feds, back to the state?

I see basic infrastructure as a necessity - bridges, roads, fiber optic backbones,,, because those things are needed to compete in the world market.

Enter the 21st century, times change, needs change, technology changes.

As for ELRs, my wife works for a doctors office, if it was not for cable mode, they would not have high speed.

 

[PeshakJang]

Liberals complain about poor rural conservative hicks getting more tax dollars than they pay in, and then they say they want to give them more.

Liberals complain about poor rural conservative hicks thumping their bibles and clinging to their guns, then claim that they are the great working class that liberals are the champions of.

Liberals complain about the automobile and how it's allowed people to spread out and greedily consume more resources by living away from cities, and then thy want to spend more money to make sure they can continue doing so.

Logic is outside the realm of liberal thinking in so many topics, it's easier to just call the other person and idiot and throw a tantrum. Pathetic.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

When I buy gas, I have no say so where those tax dollars go. Do the tax dollars go to the state, to the feds, back to the state?

I see basic infrastructure as a necessity - bridges, roads, fiber optic backbones,,, because those things are needed to compete in the world market.

Enter the 21st century, times change, needs change, technology changes.

As for ELRs, my wife works for a doctors office, if it was not for cable mode, they would not have high speed.

Interesting. And yet the people who see affordable health care as a necessity are just dirty fucking socialists... Pretty sure you need health care well above high speed Internet.

And I live in a rural hamlet of about 200 people with no hope in hell of ever seeing high-speed. My choice to buy here even though I had cable Internet in the city. I've made changes in my life to account for that. Suck it up buttercup and do the same.