ISP Lobbying Group: What Rural Broadband Problem? - Move along folks, there's nothing to see here...
Links: home · search · speed test · login · more ·

ISP Lobbying Group: What Rural Broadband Problem?
Move along folks, there's nothing to see here...
(old news - 09:17AM Thursday Mar 06 2008)
tags: legal · coverage · business · Op/Ed · Politics
Those of you in rural America who can't get broadband have simply miscalculated, according to the US Internet Industry Association, a Washington lobbying organization for ISPs and Internet industry. "The accepted political dogma that America has in some way failed in its efforts to deploy broadband is based on a series of miscalculations," insists USIAA CEO David McClure in a new report. Chock full of industry think-tank science, the report seems little more than an effort to blow smoke up consumers' collective ethernet ports:
Click for full size
Certainly, there is still work to be done in closing the digital divides in America. Equally clearly, however, this work should be based not on continuing efforts to pursue such unhelpful policies as open access, common carriage laws for broadband networks, municipal networking or network neutrality legislation.
Yes. Who wants application and device-agnostic networks and cities and towns allowed to run their own broadband? Crazy people -- That's who. And rural users who thought they couldn't get broadband because ISPs deem vast stretches of rural America unprofitable (and successfully lobby to ban those towns from deploying broadband themselves)? You apparently just need to go back and check your math.

The accepted political dogma that America has in some way failed in its efforts to deploy broadband is based on a series of miscalculations.
-USIIA CEO David McClure
The report insists that a lack of broadband isn't the ISPs fault as much as it is that people are, well, poor. The group throws their weight behind the already dubious Connected Nation model, a group that's been recently criticized as an incumbent lobbying group dressed up as a rural broadband mapping & deployment project.

Reading the report this morning while nursing a head cold got us thinking. How about this as the first step in the development of a real, useful national broadband policy: Stop letting industry lobbyists and marketing departments pretend they produce useful "science."

It's also time to extinguish the fallacy that lobbyists, paid to have only one, permanently static viewpoint, are interested in having a legitimate discussion on broadband deployment, network neutrality, or any other topic. Does a television commercial ever see the flaws in its arguments and change its position? Do open forums with said television commercials produce substantive change?

Click for full size
The goal is profit, not philanthropy, and data is manipulated and twisted until it serves that singular, unwavering goal. This is not objective analysis. It is not science. It is advertising. Can you have a debate with advertising? Sure. But we're tired of trying and life is too short.

Every time we de-construct the skewed data and farmed science in lobbyist reports, the same false arguments re-appear the next month. It's like playing whack-a-mole with a financially-conflicted R2-D2. So instead of wasting our time: If you want to see if rural America has a broadband problem, ask the people who live there -- not the lobbyists trying to convince lawmakers that the problem doesn't exist and/or isn't their fault.

For those who think rural broadband coverage gaps are a "miscalculation," our users will be happy to provide tours.

Related:
  1. Verizon & AT&T Defend 'Anti-Tech' Positions
  2. Embarq: Selling User Browsing Data 'Empowers' Users
  3. Friday Evening Links
  4. Wednesday Evening Links
  5. FTTH Council Wants 100Mbps For All
  6. Tuesday Evening Links
  7. Monday Evening Links
  8. Tuesday Morning Links
Links: New Topic
Forums »

wentlanc @ 6th Mar 09:25AM:
Non profit networking....

Remove the transport from greedy corporations, and let them really compete for access. This would be revolutionary for the American consumer. It would also erode the pockets of the ISP's who rely on milking their infrastructure to make their profits. That's why they want closed networks. That's why they want full control. And that's why the want to avoid neutrality.


reply
MagMan @ 6th Mar 09:30AM:
Nothing to see here...

Nice pic have not seen that guy in a long time. :p

»www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/

Oh yes and as far as the article goes sounds like BS to me.
--
"The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is."

reply
pnh102 @ 6th Mar 09:32AM:
Nothing Stopping Private Citizens

While local governments can and should be banned from rolling their own networks, there is nothing stopping private citizens from investing their own resources and setting up their own network, even as a non-profit venture.

Whatever happened to that "can-do" spirit?
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate!

reply
patcat88 @ 6th Mar 09:33AM:
Re: Non profit networking....

1984 deregulation (or reregulation if you want to call it that) worked very well. No player can offer the functions/services that its competitor offers. IE, ILEC can only offer copper loop, only ISP can offer DSL, only local exchange CLEC can offer intra-LATA, and only long distence can offer inter-LATA. When no players can control more than 1 part of the service, there will be competition
reply
Mr Matt @ 6th Mar 09:37AM:
We need a new Rural Electrification Association

:) In the Nineteen Thirties most rural homes did not have electric power or telephone service. That was when the government set up the Rural Electrification Association. They provided long term, low interest loans to electrical or telephone cooperatives to install power distribution and telephone networks. My electrical power is delivered by an electric power cooperative and is the lowest cost power in the area. Remember the cooperative was made up by local residents interested in obtaining service. What we need is the Rural Fiber Distribution Association. That would cut the incumbent local exchange carriers out of the picture and allow the interested citizens to manage the installation of their service.
reply
gaforces @ 6th Mar 09:38AM:
Re: Nothing Stopping Private Citizens

Successful broadband deployment has been a combination of private and public resources teaming up. THAT is can-do spirit!
--
Vista ~ Less functional every day!

reply
openbox9 @ 6th Mar 09:38AM:
Re: Nothing Stopping Private Citizens

Small clarification. Government shouldn't be allowed to roll their own network to unfairly compete with private industry. There is nothing wrong with govt rolling their own network for govt use, e.g. municipality network to support municipal government, state wide network to support state government, etc.
reply
TK Junk Mail @ 6th Mar 09:40AM:
Re: Non profit networking....

said by wentlanc :

Remove the transport from greedy corporations, and let them really compete for access.
Confiscation? That is your solution? Nationalizing an industry is the favorite tactic of socialist dictators everywhere. Let's turn the US in to Cuba or Venezuela.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page

reply
gaforces @ 6th Mar 09:41AM:
Re: We need a new Rural Electrification Association

Agreed, maybe we can use eminent domain to oust uncooperative ILEC wanna-be everything. Just because they have successfully violated the public trust with their lobbying, doesn't mean that that legislation wont be overturned once a more favorable (for the public) atmosphere is obtained.
--
Vista ~ Less functional every day!

reply
pnh102 @ 6th Mar 09:42AM:
Re: Nothing Stopping Private Citizens

said by gaforces :

Successful broadband deployment has been a combination of private and public resources teaming up. THAT is can-do spirit!
"I'm from the government and I am here to help."

*shudder*

If what you say is true, then why is it always the government holding back private broadband deployments? We see examples shown on this website everyday. A company like Verizon wants to run FIOS to some town somewhere, but the town won't let them because some local politician wants a new pool or some BS like that. Lather, rinse and repeat. The same story is repeated all over the country. Government, especially local government, has done more to hobble private broadband deployment than any "market forces."
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate!

reply
pnh102 @ 6th Mar 09:43AM:
Re: We need a new Rural Electrification Association

The Tennessee Valley Authority (a product of 1930s socialism) is widely regarded as the Amtrak of electric power. This isn't the way to go.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate!

reply
openbox9 @ 6th Mar 09:50AM:
Re: We need a new Rural Electrification Association

There is nothing preventing formation of co-ops to do exactly what you're discussing to build out infrastructure. Government doesn't need to be involved...beyond standard ROW agreements that private industry already has to worry about.
reply
elios @ 6th Mar 09:56AM:
Re: Non profit networking....

really? seems to working well in UT
UTOPIA seems to be doing well and this is pretty much what the OP is saying

and imo id take UTOPIA over FiOS any day
reply
gaforces @ 6th Mar 09:57AM:
Re: Nothing Stopping Private Citizens

Maybe because the private entity's are cherry picking, leaving huge swaths of the country unserved. Let there be CAKE, but only to those they consider profitable of course!

The only way unserved area's will be deployed to is to have private and public cooperation, or twisting of arms like for instance, Boston. If they want to deploy in the profitable areas they should have to also deploy in the rest of the state where the ROI is lower.

Private entity's are holding up deployment squabbling and holding back deployment with all kinds of excuses and bribing till they get to cherry pick what they wish and screw the rest.
--
Vista ~ Less functional every day!

reply
pnh102 @ 6th Mar 10:02AM:
Re: Nothing Stopping Private Citizens

said by gaforces :

Maybe because the private entity's are cherry picking, leaving huge swaths of the country unserved.
So what if they are cherry picking? Last I checked companies like Verizon, Comcast and AT&T are not charities. They have an obligation to their shareholders to be profitable.
said by gaforces :

If they want to deploy in the profitable areas they should have to also deploy in the rest of the state where the ROI is lower.
We've seen this before. The end result of this is everyone does get equal service. That is, none whatsoever.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate!

reply
Nuts @ 6th Mar 10:03AM:
Re: Nothing Stopping Private Citizens

Should they be banned from building and maintaining roads also.
reply
pnh102 @ 6th Mar 10:05AM:
Re: Non profit networking....

said by elios :

really? seems to working well in UT
UTOPIA seems to be doing well and this is pretty much what the OP is saying
Last we checked, UTOPIA was $98 million in the hole. The taxpayers are on the hook for this. At least if a private company wasted that kind of cash, the general public would not be on the hook for anything.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate!

reply
pnh102 @ 6th Mar 10:06AM:
Re: Nothing Stopping Private Citizens

said by Nuts :

Should they be banned from building and maintaining roads also.
No.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate!

reply
gaforces @ 6th Mar 10:09AM:
Re: Nothing Stopping Private Citizens

said by pnh102 :

said by gaforces :

Maybe because the private entity's are cherry picking, leaving huge swaths of the country unserved.
So what if they are cherry picking? Last I checked companies like Verizon, Comcast and AT&T are not charities. They have an obligation to their shareholders to be profitable.
said by gaforces :

If they want to deploy in the profitable areas they should have to also deploy in the rest of the state where the ROI is lower.
We've seen this before. The end result of this is everyone does get equal service. That is, none whatsoever.
Lies from the ILEC's and their stockholders.
--
Vista ~ Less functional every day!

reply
anon @ 6th Mar 10:09AM:
Re: Non profit networking....

Wrong! If you want competition and the best possible service for the lowest price. totally deregulate everything. any ISP has the right to come into any town so long as the citizens of the town have a chance to vote the ok that so called applying provider is allowed to run lines into the town to provide a service. It is called free market capitalism. as long as each provider applies to the town and the town votes to allow another ISP to come in then you will have the best possible rates. for those that vote no then no lines can or will be run through their premises for a said period of time. so they either have a choice to not get the service and vote no ro they get the service possibilities and say yay. to hell with regulation in all shapes and form this is what hurts the consumer in price economics.
reply
pnh102 @ 6th Mar 10:11AM:
Re: Nothing Stopping Private Citizens

said by gaforces :

Lies from the ILEC's and their stockholders.
How is it a lie?

I am not sure how you can disprove that companies like Verizon, AT&T and Comcast are in the business to make money.

As for companies not providing service due to objections by the local government, this is true. How can a company offer service when a local government doesn't allow them to operate?
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate!

reply
Cerabus12 @ 6th Mar 10:12AM:
I'm Done

I'm Done I"m going to Canada where I can get some broadband later
reply
openbox9 @ 6th Mar 10:15AM:
Re: We need a new Rural Electrification Association

That's an extremely costly proposition, and I as a taxpayer do not support that. Who takes care of the infrastructure after we pay billions to purchase the infrastructure? Who runs over site of the infrastructure after the government purchases it? Who is willing to pay the huge legal expense that would be incurred from claiming eminent domain on corporate America?
reply
lvlorpheus @ 6th Mar 10:18AM:
In the big picture it effects the urban areas phone co.'s

The cable co.'s have built there profits on what they built and have now, and really have nothing to lose. The phone co.'s on the other hand a good portion of there profits come from rural phone customers. With cell phone becoming more affordable and more competitive it is just a matter of time before more and more revenue is lost from rural phone lines. Guess what the big phone co.'s don't want to make less money. So, as they lose more and more rural phone customers where are they going to recoup that revenue from? Existing customers in urban areas. So, either way the urban areas are going to pay. Either they pay for nothing or they pay and then they can communicate with family and friends in rural areas and have access to broadband when they travel to other parts of the country. I really don't see what all the fussing and arguing is about. Either come together and pay for something, or stay divided and pay for nothing, but either way there will be paying involved.
reply
wentlanc @ 6th Mar 10:19AM:
Re: Non profit networking....

Whatever works.....

Paint the picture of doom and gloom, and fear monger as much as you like. If it makes the broadband landscape in the US better, I'm for it. I don't have any allegiance to any corporations pocketbook, so I'm actually open to suggestions.
reply
Transmaster @ 6th Mar 10:31AM:
I will say it yet one more time

What is needed in this country is something like the REA, The Rural Electric Association. The REA brought electricity to the country side and this investment has paid off in a big way. An RBA, Rural Broadband Association could mean the same thing to rural areas, and I have no doubt the economic boost would be just as large.
--
Send a prayer to Allah, eat Beans.

reply
jimbo48 @ 6th Mar 10:31AM:
Private citzens and the "Can Do " Spirit

It all sounds good on paper . get a bunch of people together and build a infrastructure except for one minor detail. Those same private citizens have to get permission from the various government agencies and be "allowed" access to public right of ways, permits, variances the list goes on.Hell, we need a permit to cut down a tree on private property AFTER showing cause why it should be removed. The various government entities then coerce these efforts by insisting on subsidies for utility updates road and lighting improvements/repaving of the roadways if going underground,a popular tactic to repair crumbling roadways. If they want to hang the infrastructure off of poles on the streets- highly unlikely these days- They either have to pay the utility or telephone company for that as well as get a permit again from a government agency. Those poles rest on public right of way or on easements so again government is involved.Don't look to the government for help - they're looking right back on Private citizen for more revenue and not to protect and serve.
reply
Nuts @ 6th Mar 10:32AM:
Re: Nothing Stopping Private Citizens

Then whats the difference with building a fiber and or copper infrastructure, and then turn around and let anyone that wants to use it to provide service to use those lines.

I agree with you that the government should not be an ISP, cable provider, telco.
reply
pnh102 @ 6th Mar 10:37AM:
Re: Nothing Stopping Private Citizens

said by Nuts :

Then whats the difference with building a fiber and or copper infrastructure, and then turn around and let anyone that wants to use it to provide service to use those lines.
The difference is that no one is forced to pay for roads. People who do not drive do not pay gas taxes, car registration fees, tolls, or other fees that are used for highway maintenance.

In every single government-provided broadband boondoggle project, either taxpayer money is used, or money is siphoned off from some other government-provided service to pay for the costs of broadband. This not only confirms the un-profitability argument, but further screws taxpayers and ratepayers for unrelated services.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate!

reply
gaforces @ 6th Mar 10:45AM:
Re: We need a new Rural Electrification Association

We could get back the money from people and corporations that put their cash in overseas banks (tax shelters) like ... the Caymans.
--
Vista ~ Less functional every day!

reply
openbox9 @ 6th Mar 10:47AM:
Re: Private citzens and the "Can Do " Spirit

That's kind of my point of view. We don't want government in the mix any more than necessary. Bureaucracy is, well, bureaucracy. Less is typically better.
reply
openbox9 @ 6th Mar 10:50AM:
Re: In the big picture it effects the urban areas phone co.'s

said by lvlorpheus :

The phone co.'s on the other hand a good portion of there profits come from rural phone customers.
Huh? Where did that concept come from? Deploying service to rural communities cost money and is the reason that the now abused USF was created. Companies aren't making money deploying to rural environments.
reply
openbox9 @ 6th Mar 10:52AM:
Re: We need a new Rural Electrification Association

No you can't. If we could do that, we already would have.
reply
gaforces @ 6th Mar 10:54AM:
Re: We need a new Rural Electrification Association

Your wrong, the reason we can't do it now is because the people who have authority to do anything about it, are participating in gutting our country.
--
Vista ~ Less functional every day!

reply
openbox9 @ 6th Mar 11:25AM:
Re: We need a new Rural Electrification Association

And the point is that isn't going to change.
reply
en102 @ 6th Mar 11:29AM:
Re: Nothing Stopping Private Citizens

Many that live in the southwest do not pay car registration fees, have a license or insurance either... but they still drive the roads
--
Canada = Hollywood North

reply
lvlorpheus @ 6th Mar 11:30AM:
Re: In the big picture it effects the urban areas phone co.'s

"Huh? Where did that concept come from? Deploying service to rural communities cost money and is the reason that the now abused USF was created. Companies aren't making money deploying to rural environments."

No it does not make money in a quarter or 2 or probable a year or 2, but in time it does return a profit. So not deploying service to rural customers does lose customers, and any profit. So, either there will be no deployment and a guarantee of lost profits that will be recouped in the thriving urban markets, or it will be deployed and will in time turn a profit. Rural areas have nothing to lose. Urban areas do have something to gain, a higher bill.
reply
MyDogHsFleas @ 6th Mar 11:36AM:
So where's the actual refutation of the paper?

All I see are sarcastic remarks and the usual "let's just give everything to the government and let them run it because corporations are evil" threads.

If you read the paper, it actually draws some conclusions based on data.

I think the paper wins so far.
reply
jhboricua @ 6th Mar 11:38AM:
Re: Non profit networking....

said by pnh102 :

At least if a private company wasted that kind of cash, the general public would not be on the hook for anything.
Really? I call bs on that statement. Northwest Airlines has been bailed twice by MN taxpayers with little to show for it. The Savings & Loans crisis of the 80's and 90's cost the US taxpayers $124.6 billion. The current subprime mortgage crisis IS costing taxpayers everywhere. These are just a few examples.
--
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." - Albert Einstein
Jose A. Hernandez * System Admin * MPLS, Minnesota, USA *

reply
Jigsaw @ 6th Mar 11:41AM:
Re: We need a new Rural Electrification Association

said by gaforces :

Your wrong, the reason we can't do it now is because the people who have authority to do anything about it, are participating in gutting our country.
And thats the nerve center of the whole affair....Our Government has Failed because we failed to put them to the fire.
--
"It's called the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it."-George Carlin

reply
pnh102 @ 6th Mar 11:42AM:
Re: Non profit networking....

said by jhboricua :

Northwest Airlines has been bailed twice by MN taxpayers with little to show for it. The Savings & Loans crisis of the 80's and 90's cost the US taxpayers $124.6 billion. The current subprime mortgage crisis IS costing taxpayers everywhere. These are just a few examples.
So you are proving that government bailouts are bad. Why should we allow for more to occur?
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate!

reply
jhboricua @ 6th Mar 11:50AM:
Re: Nothing Stopping Private Citizens

The local government are not preventing them to operate. That is a lie too. The problem is that companies such as Verizon, AT&T and Comcast want to have their cake and eat it.

There's nothing to stop them from providing services.
--
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." - Albert Einstein
Jose A. Hernandez * System Admin * MPLS, Minnesota, USA *

reply
jhboricua @ 6th Mar 11:52AM:
Re: Non profit networking....

Nice way of trying to twist my response. I expected nothing less from a shill.
reply
joker5656 @ 6th Mar 11:54AM:
Re: Non profit networking....

you make since but since there is never a vote for the people to decide i see this a moot point. the company's go to the top level of gov in that town and sign exclusive deals. there is no vote. Only politicians that think they know what there doing is the only vote. that's why most cities/town don't have two or more companies competing in the same area. imagine if you could choose between two or more cable company's, its a dream waiting to be had. a choice between cable, dsl, wireless, and satellite Internet is not competition since there speeds differ greatly in a given area. very few cities/towns get any competition between the 4 and usually there in huge cities.
reply
openbox9 @ 6th Mar 11:55AM:
Re: In the big picture it effects the urban areas phone co.'s

I'd be curious to see the math that you propose allow providers to turn a profit over time for rural deployments. Urban areas face a bigger bill if providers are forced to deploy to rural areas. The higher cost comes either in the form of higher service charges (because for various reasons, we won't force rural subscribers to pay what it really costs to deploy service) or through increased taxes such as the USF, or it's successor, so that we can assist the providers that we forced to deploy service in the first place. You're painting the situation like the urban areas pay higher costs no matter what, and I seriously doubt that to be true.
reply
anon @ 6th Mar 12:07PM:
Read The Report For Yourself

Karl's post is a nice screed, but it doesn't accurately report what the study shows, who I am, what I believe or what the USIIA has stood for over the past 15 years. The comments pretty badly misrepresent the paper's intent, facts, statements and conclusions.

You may want to take his comments with a large grain of salt -- or better yet, read the report yourself before taking such comments at face value. It's fairly short and succinct, even with citations and footnotes. A copy of it can be found on our site at »www.usiia.org.

The report notes that we have a tendency to mix and confuse deployment data with adoption data, and use unverified data, use obsolete data, and selectively quote from data in order to obscure the facts.

It also notes that no matter how successful we are at deployment of the technology, there are still significant hurdles to its adoption. And that until we begin to address these issues, which include literacy, computing skills and costs, we are going to be stuck at an adoption rate far less than we want or need.

As for the policy points the paper proposes, they are pretty simple:

1) Regulation of networks will not be successful in increasing adoption rates for broadband.
2) More and better data is needed.
3) Federal programs should focus on supporting state and local initiatives.
5) Investment in broadband infrastructure will still be critical.
6) We will continue to need broadband policy support for urban and suburban areas as well as rural.

Where I live, in the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia, I was unable to get broadband a year ago. Today, the neighbors on either side of me are using optical wireless coneections, another neighbor uses an EVDO connection, I use satellite...and the cable trucks have begun laying cable down our country road. That kind of deployment is happening nationwide, and while the results are not yet perfect, they are rapidly improving.

As for labeling me a lobbyist, I can live with that. It has been an honor to represent ISPs for the past 15 years, and to ensure that members of our Internet industry are accorded their due rights under the First Amendment to "...petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Dave McClure
President and CEO
US Internet Industry Association

Author of "Deployment of Broadband to Rural America"
reply
powerhog @ 6th Mar 12:12PM:
Re: So where's the actual refutation of the paper?

You think that report is good?

It starts off by slamming contrary reports for not "normalizing" data and making comparisons to population density, etc. then it goes on to give broad statistics like miles of fibre in Montana without giving any information on WHERE those miles are being deployed. And where (and what kind) of deployments are being planned for the other locations? Are they RURAL locations or are the ISPs just upgrading (aka deploying) existing systems?

Sorry, that report fails on every level.
reply
lvlorpheus @ 6th Mar 12:22PM:
Re: In the big picture it effects the urban areas phone co.'s

I guess part of the proof would be that the phone co.'s are still in business after being forced to deploy phone and in rural areas. People that have cable as a choice of other than pots phone the phone co is still there trying to compete for business. If it were not profitable they would just jack the price up and let the networks die and people would switch to an alternative service. Look with cell phone becoming unlimited and cheaper more and more people are going to drop there land line. I guess I am wrong and the big phone co.'s are ok with making less money and will just settle for less profits. They are probable not bright enough to think to rise the cost of service to the customers they keep. Why do you think they are raising the cost of DSL? To become more competitive or to recoup lost revenue.
reply
Talis @ 6th Mar 12:25PM:
Re: Nothing Stopping Private Citizens

said by pnh102 :

A company like Verizon wants to run FIOS to some town somewhere, but the town won't let them because some local politician wants a new pool or some BS like that. Lather, rinse and repeat. The same story is repeated all over the country. Government, especially local government, has done more to hobble private broadband deployment than any "market forces."
I totally disagree with this statement. It's corporate greed that has done more to hobble broadband deployment.

Isn't it the business of local government to look out for the interests of the citizens? If a corporation comes into any town asking for special access (monopoly right-of-way privileges) in order to offer a service, it SHOULD be the governments job to make sure that ALL citizens will benefit from that transaction. Your attempts to spin this into some sort of corruption scam is truly shudder-worthy.

Local government should be free to say "go away" to anyone that can't or won't provide universal service, and should then be free to provide the service themselves if they so choose.
reply
batageek @ 6th Mar 12:31PM:
Re: Non profit networking....

I CALL B.S.

The only thing stopping multiple builds is the lack of payback in the private sector business model to do so.

The "crooked politician" arguments don't hold weight. Blocking a cable build by an "exclusive" agreement is against the law.

See: »www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscod···00-.html
--
»www.tricitybroadband.com

reply
MyDogHsFleas @ 6th Mar 12:44PM:
Re: So where's the actual refutation of the paper?

said by powerhog :

You think that report is good?
Sorry, that report fails on every level.
You misread my post. I did not say the report was good. I said it draws conclusions based on data, which is more than I see here. Therefore the report wins by default (in my view anyway).

I am seriously not trying to take a position either way. I'd love to be shown the refutation. I'd find that interesting.

I'm suspicious, however, that there is no such refutation, and this is simply another "the telco/cable big corporations are evil and all their pipes should be given to the government" attitude around here. Which is, frankly, an uninteresting, predictable discussion. I get nothing out of that.
reply
viperlmw @ 6th Mar 12:45PM:
Re: Non profit networking....

UTOPIA would be considered an overbuild. Other infrastructure already exists (twisted pair copper (Qwest) and coax (whoever the cable provider is)). While it is a municipal build, it's still an overbuild. Anyone can do that if they can figure out how to pay for it.
reply
openbox9 @ 6th Mar 12:51PM:
Re: In the big picture it effects the urban areas phone co.'s

said by lvlorpheus :

I guess part of the proof would be that the phone co.'s are still in business after being forced to deploy phone and in rural areas.
....
If it were not profitable they would just jack the price up and let the networks die and people would switch to an alternative service.
Because they are regulated and funded through USF to do so, not because it's generating revenue for them (unless you consider the USF as a source of revenue for them, which I don't and believe it's a waste of tax money).
said by lvlorpheus :

Look with cell phone becoming unlimited and cheaper more and more people are going to drop there land line. I guess I am wrong and the big phone co.'s are ok with making less money and will just settle for less profits.
What less money are they making. Maybe I'm not following your posts correctly. Telcos are regulated to provide basic phone service to every household in their service area. They are regulated so they can't randomly raise rates without approval. As part of the regulation, telcos receive assistance (i.e. USF) in non-profitable areas to provide service where they normally aren't financially willing to do so. DSL is not regulated and therefore telcos can raise rates as necessary to cover deployment costs. Are you suggesting that telcos "can" charge less and generate more revenue if they deploy DSL to rural markets in addition to urban markets? I hope not.
reply
MyDogHsFleas @ 6th Mar 12:56PM:
Re: Non profit networking....

Whenever people suggest to me that the government take over something because it'd be run better/more fairly/more cheaply/whatever, I always ask them if they enjoyed their last visit to the Motor Vehicle Department, Post Office, Courthouse, Tax Assessor's Office, Social Security Office, etc. Not to mention TSA at the airport.

These are perfect example of government-run services. They very obviously could care less about their customers. It's all about their employees, their rules, and their convenience. They literally have zero incentive to satisfy your particular needs.

Do big companies suck? Yes, in many ways. But, to me, big government takes suck to a whole new level. And, there are no checks and balances to stop them, really. At least with big corporations you have SOME level of choice (let the bitching about "there's no real competition" begin... but it's better than literally none except the Government).
reply
lvlorpheus @ 6th Mar 01:10PM:
Re: In the big picture it effects the urban areas phone co.'s

You know what there is no need to debate this. In all reality broadband is the wave of the future and it will be deployed across America including rural America. There is a winning side of a debate and a loosing side to a debate. There will be many battles back and forth but in the end the wave of the future will win the war. How many school students of the next 10 years do you think are not going to be computer literate and demand broadband. Do you think the students 10 yours out from that are going to be less demanding of the internet. Americans will not stand for a technical/class divide. Just like America abolished slavery, insisted on equal rights, and the right for women to vote. It may take some time and you many win many debates but in your lifetime you will see you lost this war, and rural America will have broadband. Just the plan and simple facts.
reply
anon @ 6th Mar 01:11PM:
Re: Nothing Stopping Private Citizens

said by pnh102 :

said by Nuts :

Should they be banned from building and maintaining roads also.
No.
Why?
reply
anon @ 6th Mar 01:41PM:
Re: Non profit networking....

really. I have personally tried to get fiber from another cable company 10 miles away for a great price because a cable company (suscom) was going to allow this however suscom was bought out by comcast and comcast will not allow mediacom to run fiber to our buisness. whether its against the law or not i dont know but i do know that we are not going to pay a bunch of lawyers to find out. but this is the exact statement given to me from mediacom and they are and were very serious about getting our buisness for the next three years by running fiber to 6 different sites but no, freemarket ISP doesnt exist in my neighborhood
reply
pnh102 @ 6th Mar 01:26PM:
Re: Non profit networking....

said by jhboricua :

Nice way of trying to twist my response.
Glad you see my point.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate!

reply
pnh102 @ 6th Mar 01:27PM:
Re: Nothing Stopping Private Citizens

said by jhboricua :

The local government are not preventing them to operate.
How? When the local government explicitly tells an ISP that it cannot make a deployment, that is pretty cut and dried to me. I don't see how you can spin this.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate!

reply
pnh102 @ 6th Mar 01:28PM:
Re: Nothing Stopping Private Citizens

said by Talis :

It's corporate greed that has done more to hobble broadband deployment.
If that was true we'd have no private broadband anywhere.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate!

reply
openbox9 @ 6th Mar 01:48PM:
Re: In the big picture it effects the urban areas phone co.'s

Your arguments are all over the place so I'll attempt to keep up. I have no problem with everyone having access to the Internet and multiple choices to do so. In fact, I welcome the day that I can go anywhere in the US and select service from 10 different ISPs. I'm not fighting a war to deny access to anyone. What I have concern with is the method how some suggest we should pay for this "broadband utopia".
reply
nasadude @ 6th Mar 02:06PM:
Re: Read The Report For Yourself

You are quoted in an online article saying:

"The accepted political dogma that America has in some way failed in its efforts to deploy broadband is based on a series of miscalculations," McClure said. There are three issues that contribute to these miscalculations:

- Too often the level of Internet deployment is confused with the level of adoption.
- Data from America is compared with data from other countries, without regard for factors such as population density or percentage of rural versus suburban or urban areas.
- The data that does exist is presented in ways intended to support a specific policy or political view rather than allowing the data to speak to itself."

if you would like us to believe you, you could start by not trotting out the disproven assertion in bold above.

The OECD has collected and reported data that shows population density/size have no relationship to broadband deployment.

with regard to deployment and adoption, we would all be much less confused if broadband providers would release this data, which the incumbents adamantly refuse to do.

I used to think it was because they had something to hide - the sorry state of broadband deployment and uptake in the U.S.; apparently however, they refuse to release the information to protect us from terrorists

»If Comcast Shares Broadband Deployment Data, The Terrorists Win
reply
lvlorpheus @ 6th Mar 02:18PM:
Re: In the big picture it effects the urban areas phone co.'s

I think you will agree more and more land line are being done away with. As that happens the slush fund gets smaller and smaller, because if you do not have a service from a large phone co. you do not pay the tax. So, again do you think the phone co.'s are going to be satisfied with less revenue or do you think they will try to recoup that investment from the customer base they maintain. Such as the urban DSL, and UVERSE ,and Fios customer. I think the phone co.'s should see the writing on the wall and step up to the plate and build out there networks, but no they will try to milk that money out of phone service that in rural areas is becoming less competitive every year. The phone co.'s have already gotten more than enough money from the slush fund and it will in time go away on its own. But again they are going to recoup that money somewhere. I am guessing it will be from the customers they maintain. I ordered DSL from AT&T last week and I was really surprised they even took my order, but I was very excited and hopeful that I would soon have DSL. I checked on the AT&T forum here and was told that my area is not serviced by DSL. I remained hopeful and when I came home from school yesterday there was the AT&T lineman at the end of my road inspecting wires. I stopped and asked if he was testing my line for DSL. He laughed and said they will never put DSL out here until the Government makes them do it. My point is the more people buy into the argument that there is no rural broadband need the more "in the big picture" they need to be prepared to make up that lost revenue, or live in dream land and think the phone co.'s are going to be ok making less money. Thus my post title.
reply
Lineage @ 6th Mar 03:15PM:
Re: Read The Report For Yourself

Mr. Lobbyist:

I also live in the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia 15mins away from a large town. There is no cable, no wireless, no DSL. You can't even get decent speed dialup, it connects at 26.4k. And satellite is not broadband.

The population here is plenty dense enough for DSL, and there are enough people next to the road to justify cable. They should AT LEAST give us dialup that connects higher than 26.4k. And that is the same scenario all over this area.

I will also trust Karl over a government lobbyist any day.

You sir, fail.
reply
openbox9 @ 6th Mar 05:26PM:
Re: In the big picture it effects the urban areas phone co.'s

said by lvlorpheus :

because if you do not have a service from a large phone co. you do not pay the tax. So, again do you think the phone co.'s are going to be satisfied with less revenue
All telecommunications providers pay into the USF...size is irrelevant. There is no "less revenue" for the telcos.
said by lvlorpheus :

phone co.'s should see the writing on the wall and step up to the plate and build out there networks
They are. Telcos invest billions each year to upgrade and expand infrastructure. Don't limit your request to telcos...cablecos are the current de facto "other" infrastructure provider and they are investing billions as well.
said by lvlorpheus :

but no they will try to milk that money out of phone service that in rural areas is becoming less competitive every year
Why do you keep saying this? There is no money to "milk" out of rural areas.
reply
axus @ 6th Mar 05:48PM:
Re: Non profit networking....

I'm always interested in how they are doing, I think its up to taxpayers if they want to go forward with these things. I think they will keep voting for it, even if it costs money in the short term.

Can you provide a link with their financial status that isn't a message-board post?
reply
axus @ 6th Mar 05:49PM:
Re: Non profit networking....

Heh I usually have a good time at the Post Office, it is not government run. I have had poor mail carriers.
reply
powerhog @ 6th Mar 05:54PM:
Re: So where's the actual refutation of the paper?

Data as it exists out of context is useless. Let's talk about this piece of data:
quote:
The National Telecommunications Cooperative Association (NTCA) – the "voice of rural telecommunications" -- reported in September of 2007 that "ninety-nine percent of the 2007 survey respondents offer broadband to some part of their customer base.

OK, fine. Some parts of 99% of the telco regions have access to broadband. But let's look at what they aren't telling us:

The ILEC for my area is a member of the NTCA so I'm sure they happily responded to this survey. They do offer DSL to those who live in 'town'... which has a population of about 800. For the thousands (far more than live IN town) of us who live outside of town, we do not have DSL or cable service. So, while 800 have DSL, thousands go without. But they can truthfully claim that some part of their customer base is served.

But let's also look at the author's other argument... "adoption". How many people actually purchase the broadband our loving telcos have graciously provided for us. From this link: »totelcsi.net/800/index800.html
quote:
Lite $27.00 Speeds up to 64k - dial up equivalent
Basic $32.00 Speeds up to 256k - up to 8 times faster than normal dial-up.
Standard $42.75 Speeds up to 384k - up to 12 times faster than normal dial-up.
Premium 512k $54.00 Speeds up to 512k - up to 16 times faster than normal dial-up.
Premium 1Meg $73.80 Speeds up to 1 Meg - *Business Customers only.
Premium 3Meg $165.60 Speeds up to 3 Meg - *Business Customers only

But let's not forget the "additional costs":
quote:
Additional Costs Price Description
Lite Installation $50.00 Fee includes a modem and DSL jack installation.
Basic, Standard, or Premium Installation $100.00 Fee includes a modem and DSL jack installation.
Upgrade Charge $50.00 Fee for upgrading to a faster DSL speed from Lite DSL.
Service Order Charge $50.00 Fee for move/change/additional DSL jack.
Modem Maintenance $3.25/mo. Covers modem malfunction. Includes surge repel device.


At those prices, I think it's pretty obvious why adoption rates may not match those in urban areas.

Of course, we are lucky to have a competetive market. Check out the rates charged by my WISP. Many urban people would choke at having to pay those too. But, compared to DSL (if it were even available), the WISP is cheap!
reply
Warmachine99 @ 6th Mar 06:48PM:
Re: Read The Report For Yourself

My Brother in law lives out in the Blue Ridge Mountains. Love the view from his place, but hate the internet connection he has. I was out there for a week, and the best dial up connection he could get was 9.4K. Attempting to talk on the land line phone is next to impossible due to all the static on the line. Cell phones work great at his house due to all of the cell towers on the big mountain to the south of his house.

At his house he can not get DSL (distance to closest DSLAM is 64,000 ft), he can not get cable TV (closest home to him that has cable is 15 miles away), or OTA TV signal for that matter. His only choice is satellite for TV (which he says is bad (fuzzy, static) most of the time. He tried a Wireless internet company, which was decent for a while but quickly got oversold, and became as bad as his dial up.

Point is: If you are not 'in town' you dont count.

I live just south of Kenosha, Wi. When I moved in, I wanted to have AT&T phone and DSL at my house. Phone I could get, but I am a little over 5K feet too far away to get DSL. The local phone node is not equipped for a DSLAM, nor can it be equipped without significant upgrades to the building. My area has had a 500% increase of population density in the last 2 years, but we are still considered second class citizens when it comes to DSL. Thank God that Time Warner has a good, fiber based connection to my complex.
--
I've discovered that I often visit the state of confusion, and I know my way around pretty well.

reply
MyDogHsFleas @ 6th Mar 07:05PM:
Re: Non profit networking....

said by axus :

Heh I usually have a good time at the Post Office, it is not government run. I have had poor mail carriers.
It's true they are not literally government-run, but they certainly have that legacy and mindset. And they are (mostly) a monopoly, so they don't have the incentive to improve, really.

You are lucky. I'm in Austin, TX. All the post offices around here are severely understaffed, or should I say "under-worked". They build these beautiful new post office buildings, set up like 8 counters, and you never see more than 2 or 3 of them manned. The rest of the workers are on break or wandering around doing whatever. 30-minute waits for service are not uncommon. I avoid them like the plague. I use package services like DHL/FedEx whenever I can.
reply
MyDogHsFleas @ 6th Mar 07:15PM:
Re: So where's the actual refutation of the paper?

Good info, thanks. You've educated me.

I wonder if the solution to this high-cost situation that will come the soonest is 3G/4G wireless cellular?
reply
mudturtle74 @ 6th Mar 07:42PM:
Need I say more?


reply
jaminus @ 6th Mar 08:31PM:
Re: Nothing Stopping Private Citizens

Cherry-Picking is a good thing. Wealthy areas get new stuff first, because they're more likely to subscribe. Initial deployments are typically more expensive than later ones, so it makes sense that ISPs pick the places with high adoption rates for the newest tech. Then, as costs go down, middle class and eventually lower class areas get service too.

If your goal for everybody to have equally mediocre service, then regulate the hell out of broadband companies. But if you want broadband to constantly evolve like it has in the US over the past 10 year, then companies need to have an incentive to invest in long-term capital projects like FiOS, DOCSIS 3.0, or VDSL. Who want to spend billions on big projects if you have to cover poor areas where not many people even subscribe to $50/month internet? Profit is what drives technology forward, and profit is why mobile broadband, computer processors, and flash memory are so affordable and advanced nowadays.
reply
jaminus @ 6th Mar 08:36PM:
Re: Non profit networking....

That law you cite does ban exclusive franchises, but in practice it does nothing to stop them. Sure, in *theory* the startup can get a franchise. But only if they hand over 5 percent of revenue to the city, promise to offer service in low-income areas with low adoption rates, and in the case of TV grant a channel devoted to city council meetings that barely anyone actually watches.

Yes, in some cases private investment payoff is too low to justify building a network if there's already one in place. But if you really think the huge burdens of franchise agreements do not discourage broadband choice, then I advise you to search DSLReports news about the obstacles FiOS and U-Verse have dealt with for the past couple years.
reply
powerhog @ 6th Mar 09:47PM:
Re: So where's the actual refutation of the paper?

Cellular may be the most promising solution; but even it has a ways to go. I live 20 miles (by roads) north of Tulsa and can't even get Sprint/Nextel or Verizon voice service.
reply
decifal @ 6th Mar 10:10PM:
Re: Need I say more?

lol... i'm suprised that hasn't happened here yet! (( no not by me... tempting to tape a sign to mine, but...)))
reply
Skippy25 @ 6th Mar 10:33PM:
Re: Non profit networking....

Did you expect them to be way ahead in less then 5 years?

Over time, UTOPIA will prove to be the way EVERY community should go. Futher more, I think UTOPIA will show this nation needs 1 fiber network to every person/business that any provider can provide any service to any customer anywhere in the nation that wants that service.

I strongely disagree that every business that wants to provide service should have to build their own network throughout my neighborhood/city. That is not in the best interest of the consumer's nor the citizens. It is only in the best interest of the companies that continue to try to monopolies the industry.
reply
Grafton @ 6th Mar 10:49PM:
my rural life

i live in morgantown in west virginia and have a love/hate relationship with my comcast
back when i lived on the family farm the only options were a $3k cable line from the bottom of the hill ~300 yards ran by the cable company that just in the past few years has Internet (roadrunner) been possible down there, dial up ( had and hate) or satellite brother in law has it 1500ms ping wtf so i would think that nice broadband has not penetrated that well
reply
KrK @ 7th Mar 12:56AM:
Re: Non profit networking....

The Post Office has been getting better and better. More services, online automation, good service.

Course it's a quasi-government operation.
reply
patcat88 @ 7th Mar 08:23AM:
Re: Non profit networking....

Deregulation = allowing anti-competitive practices
reply
fgoldstein @ 7th Mar 08:59AM:
Re: We need a new Rural Electrification Association

The REA actually does fund rural telephone companies, who can use it to deliver broadband.

It's the big (Bell) companies who starve their own rural territories. They're not REA-funded, so they spend their money where it's profitable. That's the way the rules are now set up, as part of "deregulation" (the creation of unregulated monopolies).

Rural telephone companies sometimes deliver much better service than Bells in rural areas, but then it's because their customers aren't paying for it, and they are actually incentivized to waste. You don't want to know about some boondoggles out there (try "Sandwich Isles"). But then I'm aware of some very efficient operations that are spending about $10k/home to serve rustic areas, thanks to the subsidies. It goes a lot higher with inefficient companies who seek to maximize subsidy flow.
reply
fgoldstein @ 7th Mar 09:05AM:
USIIA is a Bell lobby group, not an ISP group

Dave McClure is a Verizon and ATT lobbyist. He calls himself USIIA but it's a bit like the Southern Baptist ministry called "Jews for Jesus". It fools the dumb-ass press but not people who actually pay attention.

Bells can call themselves "ISPs" for the purpose of controlling USIIA, but their agenda is to put independent ISPs out of business.
reply
fuziwuzi @ 7th Mar 10:55AM:
Re: Read The Report For Yourself

said by Dave McClure :

Where I live, in the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia, I was unable to get broadband a year ago. Today, the neighbors on either side of me are using optical wireless coneections, another neighbor uses an EVDO connection, I use satellite...and the cable trucks have begun laying cable down our country road. That kind of deployment is happening nationwide, and while the results are not yet perfect, they are rapidly improving.

As for labeling me a lobbyist, I can live with that. It has been an honor to represent ISPs for the past 15 years, and to ensure that members of our Internet industry are accorded their due rights under the First Amendment to "...petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Dave McClure
President and CEO
US Internet Industry Association

Author of "Deployment of Broadband to Rural America"
At least you're honest about being a shill. My family also lives in the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia. There is no cable tv or internet, no DSL. While satellite for TV is great, for internet access it is an expensive joke (it isn't broadband). Even dialup is physically limited by the phone system to a maximum 24kbps modem connection and that is on a good day. And this doesn't cover just a couple of houses out in the woods, but entire neighborhoods with hundreds of homes. Even getting a second phone line to a house is nearly impossible, my parents had to wait over a year to get a second line because the phone company said there just wasn't any available. A neighbor built a new house and couldn't get a phone because there were no available lines for six months. There is also no more cellular service in the neighborhood since the analog system was cut off and you must drive about 10 miles away to get even 1 bar of digital signal.

When a group of residents investigated starting their own cable service, they were told that the only cable company in the entire county had exclusive access to the entire county. That cable company, however, only serves a tiny portion of the only town in the county, the rest of the county is unserved and there are no plans to expand. The local phone company says there are no plans to upgrade the phone system, it physically cannot support DSL. And how is anyone supposed to start their own ISP of any kind if they can't get a high-speed link to a backbone? They can't even get a regular POTS line, much less anything faster.

So, people like you are part of the problem, not a solution. You only make things worse for everyone else by saying that the status quo is acceptable.
reply
batageek @ 7th Mar 04:44PM:
Re: Non profit networking....

it's a level playing field argument. You can't expect one provider to get one deal and another provider a different one.

From the city's point of view, it would dump them into a legal quagmire. The city, as it should, is looking to serve all its citizens with the same service and should be looking to get something out of the deal for its citizens.

As to the huge burdens, it's no different than what the cable cos are existing under presently. Cable cos have (in most places) universal buildout clauses for a franchise area (where local franchising has not been replaced with statewide franchising). Cities are typically trying to require the same of the bells when they begin offering video services.
--
»www.tricitybroadband.com

reply
anon @ 7th Mar 05:05PM:
To continue on the track powerhog started...

The report complains that we confuse deployment data and adoption data and then proceeds to do exactly the same thing, throwing out bits and pieces of data from different studies, some of which involve adoption, some deployment. There is NEVER a clear definition of broadband given, though it appears that satellite is included, which is always a giveaway as to intent since its inclusion always allows one to claim almost 100% US deployment.

They do have the decency to mention, in one sentence
quote:
Collection of useful data on deployment has been made difficult by...the need to keep proprietary corporate information and strategies confidential.

It was kind of them to mention it in passing since it is the heart of the problem as to why we "confuse" adoption with deployment. In short the companies provide no cooperation on deployment data and the government shows no interest in systematically trying to determine actual deployment so we are left having to do what this report, as well as everyone else, does, namely guess.

Nevertheless their insistence that we don't have good data and need more data hasn't kept them from making a slew of claims that everything is fine and:

quote:
Clearly, however, this work should be based not on continuing efforts to pursue such unhelpful policies as open access, common carriage laws for broadband networks, municipal networking or network neutrality
legislation. It should rather be based on the work over the past decade that has already proven successful
in healing the digital divides.


It's amazing how a lack of information condemns their enemies while miraculously providing clear eyed certainty as to the righteousness of their own agenda.

They don't begin to prove that "the deployment gap is closing rapidly".

The real agenda is to focus on adoption. This provides a number of advantages.
1. We can focus on the old argument that the real problem is the poor who, as always, drag everyone else down. The poor F#$K up everything.
2. We can focus not on communications companies spending to increase deployment but on government spending more to educate the poor. In other words more needs to come out of our pockets, not out of their pockets. (BTW I'm not arguing against spending on the poor, I'm just pointing up their misdirection)

Actually, what we need is to:

1. Actually determine what the hell is going on with broadband deployment.

2. realize that deployment, not adoption should be the key concern from a public policy standpoint.

Certainly companies have to worry about adoption rates. The government though needs to worry about whether people can buy it if they want to(availability), not whether those who can get it freely choose to buy or not to buy(adoption).

quote:
Federal programs should focus on supporting state and local efforts. Broadband deployment
is a local investment issue, and broadband adoption is largely a local education issue. The best
and most effective federal programs are therefore more likely to be those that support efforts that
can be tailored to the unique needs of each community rather than a single, one-size-fits-all
national program. Appropriate programs would thereby include federal grants and loans for


Since last mile access is controlled by companies with a presence over many states(in fact companies with global reach in some cases) and since the behavior of these companies is heavily tied to federal lobbying efforts in washington why should the response be local? Perhaps what they mean is that we should stay at home and mind our own business while they are playing big boy games where the real power is in washington?
reply
anon @ 8th Mar 01:03PM:
Options

I finally got cellular INTERNET to my country home. Right now its 40 bucks a month unlimited for a 21.5kbps connection. I would rather have fios but its better then the dial up Ive been on since the INTERNET was conceived.

We a world leader yet we have worse rural coverage then that of some barren nations. Cellular INTERNET can do data at serious speeds yet i must ask if why every body has a cell phone even rural communities. WHY cant cellular data reach these homes that desire broadband?

Its not just lobbyists.. Its also incompetents at all levels of government federal, state and local levels. Its also companies. Laying cable isn't that expensive to rural areas when you consider the amount of money you will generate over time. Regardless i would like to see our governments or even just state level step up and be a leader and say that we have 100% broadband coverage in our state. It wouldn't be hard to achieve and i suspect not that costly since like i said cell phones cover most of the US.

Wired is not the future, Wireless is the way of the future. Thats where the providers need to be focusing there attention because, in a few years companies that used to survive on land based phone lines will soon vanish because people are using cells and don't even have local phone service at all. I don't!

I believe that anybody willing to invest in a community should be allowed to. Its called free enterprise and thats what America is built on. Our government is anti free enterprise as well as the majority of paid of lobbyist like the one juicing this thread with.
reply
linicx @ 9th Mar 10:51PM:
Bah Humbug

Telco is going to continue to do what it wants. It always has, it always will. It is not profiitable to buy and isntall extra modems for a few people in a small twon. If they do, you can depend upon a bundled cost of about $100. Telco will not provide naked broadband in most areas.

Even China is betterr connected than us.
--
Mac: No windows, No gates, Apple inside

reply
a333 @ 25th Apr 04:23PM:
Re: Read The Report For Yourself

said by Dave McClure :

Today, the neighbors on either side of me are using optical wireless coneections
Excuse me, but what the ruddy hell is "optical wireless"?
reply

Thank you for using lo-fi dslreports.com - report bugs
© 99-2008 silver matrix LLC