Internet in the Country

[ultrarunner]

That makes no sense what-so-ever. The type of service/speed available has absolutely nothing to do with data caps. The fact is, anyone with cell coverage has a lot of options. Those without have far less options, but options none the less. If one chooses to live in an area far from civilization, they would be a fool to not realize they’ll be doing without things that those closer to town have available. It’s a choice you make. No one is under any obligation to spend tens of thousands of dollars to give you cheap high speed internet. If anyone really thinks high speed internet is a “necessity” (which is laughable), perhaps you’re not suited for rural living.

This is the interesting twist...

Locations within service areas can still be excuded... and living within the city limits is no guarantee.

In Washington I'm only 10 minutes from the Steps of the State Capital and all my neighbors have Comcast run above ground... which is no longer an option for those not already connected... and therein lies the $12,000 price to connect.

It may not be a question of availability, but one of price and/or terrain.

Friends live off grid 6 miles up a dirt road in the Santa Cruz mountains... no cell service, no electricity, sewer, etc...

They do have regular landline phone service installed in the 60's as part of the rural telephone act...

 

[riptides]

It's actually the uninformed/underinformed that holds the USA back. For a Telco to build out infrastructure to rural areas is just not a profitable venture. Yes, we are in the business to make money. This is the very reason the government is now subsidizing it with the CAF. This will offset the cost incurred by the Telco's and bring a minimum 10 meg to the rural areas. I live rural and I knew going in that the HSI I was used to in the city was not going to be available to me in the country. You have to be realistic about it. And to blame the Telco's is just ridiculous.

Where lies the blame than if not with providers? They are after all providing service, so you claim. I too live in a rural area, I have a land line, 4g when the wind blows right. I even have electricity.

Less than ten miles away there is fiber.

I have more of my neighbors interested in fiber than an entire community serviced by that technology. The "providers" have stated it is not profitable to "service" our area? Why so? They can dig into our pockets for the foreseeable future and gouge us with their 4g data plans. You see, it is more profitable for them.

 

[MMagis]

Now I understand, it's another conspiracy theory.

 

[JRobyn]

Regarding telcos sharing infrastructure, when some little mobile startup (think StraightTalk or Net10) wants to offer service, but has no network, they negotiate an agreement to be a "MVNO" (mobile virtual network operator) with a larger telco that DOES have available network capacity (think Verizon or Sprint).

- Jay

 

[kcflhrc]

Where lies the blame than if not with providers? They are after all providing service, so you claim. I too live in a rural area, I have a land line, 4g when the wind blows right. I even have electricity.

Less than ten miles away there is fiber.

I have more of my neighbors interested in fiber than an entire community serviced by that technology. The "providers" have stated it is not profitable to "service" our area? Why so? They can dig into our pockets for the foreseeable future and gouge us with their 4g data plans. You see, it is more profitable for them.

Do you have any idea how much it would cost to bury 10 miles of fiber? And then bury to each home? And then on top of that all the electronics to support the fiber. The return on investment would take years. Are you willing to pay the price? Because it wont be the same price as it would be in the city. Another assumption you are making is that all Local Telco's are also wireless providers, they are not. Why not ask the cable companies? They will tell you the same thing, cost is to high for the return. CAF will help ease the pain. My area is on the map to get HSI and there is only 3 homes in my area, we are actually at the end of the rural water line also. Fiber is less than 1/2 mile from my house, but who's fiber is it? No idea. **** it could be the City's fiber for all I know.

 

[kcflhrc]

Now I understand, it's another conspiracy theory.

Nope, it's just business, plain and simple. Share holder value and all that.

 

[ultrarunner]

A 32,000 square foot building I manage has ATT fiber at ATT insistence.

It's been there almost 3 years without a single user and I was upfront that we are very satisfied with DSL.

Not sure how this pans out for them... there was a lot of trenching and road work on a State Highway to put in the fiber and ATT even paid for an electrician to hardwire power and sends someone out regularly to inspect it...

 

[RedNeckGeek]

Regarding telcos sharing infrastructure, when some little mobile startup (think StraightTalk or Net10) wants to offer service, but has no network, they negotiate an agreement to be a "MVNO" (mobile virtual network operator) with a larger telco that DOES have available network capacity (think Verizon or Sprint).

- Jay

Yep, and as soon as you venture off their MVNO you get no voice or data service. That's because that little startup hasn't negotiated agreements with all the other local infrastructure providers that Verizon and AT&T have. That leaves consumers the choice of either paying big bux to the big providers for good coverage or taking a chance with a cheaper alternative (think StraightTalk or Net10) and being without service when they venture off the beaten path. You know, like rural America, where a lot of us live.

But in the bigger picture, even the big carriers have to duplicate not only the wireless network infrastructure, but all of the back office stuff like billing and customer support as well. That's the kind of thing that scales very well, and why stock prices often go up when companies merge: all those duplicate jobs and hardware get shut down for a huge cost savings.

I just don't understand how most developed Asian countries can deliver speeds that are unheard of in the US, with no data caps, working with the same technology we have here. Same in Europe. Even in the Third World, they build the infrastructure ONCE with heavy gummint subsidy or even outright ownership, and service is state-of-the-art.

In previous generations, the gummint passed laws that required the phone company to offer service to ALL customers, no matter what their location. That ensured that everyone was part of the network, and the higher cost of connecting rural customers was spread out over the lower cost of wiring urban ones. Now here we are in the 21st century and somehow the Internet isn't as important as the old copper phone lines and doesn't warrant the same treatment? Instead we get a few million here or there to improve a micro fraction of the network, and to subsidize satellite Internet. Incredibly short sighted.

 

[riptides]

Now I understand, it's another conspiracy theory.

Sigh....

 

[riptides]

....I just don't understand how most developed Asian countries can deliver speeds that are unheard of in the US, with no data caps, working with the same technology we have here. Same in Europe. Even in the Third World, they build the infrastructure ONCE with heavy gummint subsidy or even outright ownership, and service is state-of-the-art.

Don't you understand...We are waiting for someone to need it. SARCASUM.

I am sure the same mentality offered by those with cost associated "business needs and multipliers" applied to the railroads, the interstates and air-travel, after all we have feet and some of us have horses.