Hi-Speed Internet Gap

7 posts / 0 new
Last post
Watcher
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 2 min ago
Joined: 03/23/2008 - 12:32pm
Hi-Speed Internet Gap

Has anyone given much thought to the quiet but energized frenzy over the rural gap to have access to high-speed internet? My original thought on this was ...they chose to live in rural, inaccessible,deep woods homes with mile long dirt driveways and no neighbors. Because it cost several thousand dollars per mile to run the main cable line, they cannot afford it. Now the various proponents of eliminating the so-called internet-gap are pushing Congress to tax us all so the farmers, hermits and rural folk can have fast internet. I don't see that as my problem. These folks are enjoying the benefits of being in the sparsely populated countryside but expect me to pay for the inconveniences they have. They can get dish cable or phone company cable (DSL) but, that is just too slow for them.

What am I missing here?

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
What part of "off the grid"

What part of "off the grid" don't they understand?

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
PS: I'm paying $75 a month to

PS: I'm paying $75 a month to Comcast for crappy slow 'broadband' in Brunswick. 5% of that goes to the town "per contract." Everytime I test the download speed I get 10-12 mbps. Their lit says "up to 65 mbps" for the rate I pay.

Try the AT&T speed test to see what you get.

Green-ee
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 8 hours ago
Joined: 09/08/2007 - 6:08am
Generally speaking high speed

Generally speaking high speed internet is becoming more available and less expensive - those living in very rural settings not so much. To get 3 or more Mbps off the phone line one needs to live very close to one of those concrete or steel structures that are located along roads. Cable doesn't seem to require that size of support but lines don't exist in low density areas - and even when it is available a long driveway makes for a big bill. Satellite service like Hughsnet has a sizable latency - which makes gaming and VOIP tough, plus strict limits on how much data one uses.
If high speed internet connectivity is important to folks they should live where it is available.

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 4 hours ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
@Melvin: "PS: I'm paying $75

@Melvin: "PS: I'm paying $75 a month to Comcast for crappy slow 'broadband' in Brunswick. 5% of that goes to the town "per contract." Everytime I test the download speed I get 10-12 mbps. Their lit says "up to 65 mbps" for the rate I pay."

That's highway robbery. They don't have Spectrum there? I hate them but they are blazingly fast. (100 Mbps)

Toolsmith
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 41 min ago
Joined: 07/14/2016 - 11:22am
Amazing, some of the smaller

Amazing, some of the smaller TelCos do better. Unitel has pretty fast broadband, and is cabling for fiber to the home. Only covers 6 towns... so moving into their area is not really an option.

taxfoe
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 6 days ago
Joined: 03/22/2000 - 1:01am
Is Grandview, WA, rural? I'd

Is Grandview, WA, rural? I'd say by west coast standards it is.

Tonight, I had 3 choices to live stream the SOTU via youtube; Sprint, Verizon and my host's WIFI. I don't know who supplies the host's (Walmart) broadband. Verizon was by far the most reliable but all 3 had interruptions while the content providers, FOX, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, PBS, C-SPAN and Judicial Watch all dropped their feeds at least once.

The Walmart hotspot could be anywhere, even inside where I am not, so they get a pass. The other 2 come down to my proximity to their towers and, out here in the rural west, dependable cell service still remains elusive. For many, like me who pays top dollar, cell service is the internet and it can be very frustrating.

FWIW, at any given time there were at least a half million devices streaming the SOTU as per the providers own . . or youtube as the agent's own . . numbers. I think that's an enormously, even bigly, impressive number. Judicial Watch either didn't carry or didn't provide a link to the rebuttal and C-SPAN's signal tanked so I didn't catch it.

Log in to post comments