I have a few options at 20mbps, two or three at 40. Or I can get 4g through att. They're all overpriced, though. (Minumum $40 before equipment and other misc fees, $25 if you bundle with $60 tv package)
So if I just payed $80 a month for their 60mbps internet package they would upgrade their service in the area and offer gb for $200 a month? And then would they expect me to upgrade because that's now available? No, the reason is because median income in the area is low and most can't afford $200 a month for internet, nevermind $60. Dialup was free or less than $10 a month. Yes, 10mbps is overpriced at $40 a month, and so is 20mbps broadband dsl.And right here is the issue. The fact that you think $40 is overpriced. When battling against people that think anything over free is fucking them over most companies will decide to just fuck you over by not investing in your area.
I live in a pretty affluent region, and within a mile of the largest, best high school in the area.. Yet I still have exactly 1 option for high speed internet.
These days, with the amount of data required to view your average website, that might as well be 56k.
This is even becoming a problem for those on faster connections.
I feel todays websites are getting lazy and fat. Lets not even mention the "cameras" everywhere.
Reminds me of the episode of South Park with the creepy dude watching everyones toilets on cameras.
In a new Pew Research Center survey, 24% of Mid-Western Americans complained of not having access to Oceanside beaches and scenery and consider it to be a major issue in their area. Another 34% think that not having access to Oceans in their area is only a minor problem; which means that 58% of Mid-Western Americans seek some form of Ocean related recreation in their area. These citizens also tend to buy less Ocean worthy pleasure-craft, but the survey doesn't say if Beach activity is available on the Lakes in those Mid-Western areas.
and we might be closer to what other countries have, like South Korea where almost everyone has had access to gigabit service for years now.
You're repeating the same arguments from nearly a century ago against expanding electricity to rural areas. You want to know how it eventually happened? The Federal Government did it, on their own dime.
A century later, the way to solve the problem is exactly the same.
This. Even more than that. You know it's a problem when a single website is eating up 1GB or more of memory, and when it gets cut down to under 100MB with µBlock Origin and NoScript the experience doesn't suffer (actually improves).Websites are way way too fat.
Running noscript and adblockerplus at least brings them down to overloaded.
Most of the se websites could be cut in half and no one would notice (from a display point of view)
It's been kind of the same here in DC area where for a long time Comcast was the only broadband and even that took a long time to come and replace dialup. I think well until 2004 or 2005 there was no broadband at all. Then it was a same issue with slow FIOS expansion and higher tiers had exorbitant cost. FIOS 300 tier was pretty much around $300. Last year it finally came into affordable rate when Verizon began offering gigabit all over the place. I do like having symmetrical gigabit so my connection is pretty much never is a bottleneck. However I find that very few services can take advantage of it, pretty much only Steam is often able to go all the way and max it out. It sure was nice preloading Shadow of Tomb Raider at 120 megabytes per second. I wish expansion was better though so more people sub and prices further come down. However as always there's no competition around (well, competitor Comcast charges about the same) so prices are still too high and only new subscribers get good deals and everyone already subbed gets a shaft.
In my area they run broadband to the houses on the main road that eventually connects to an interstate 50 miles away. Since the main road; and only the main road has broadband, this means that the entire area is covered according to the government. So if you live on a road that connects to the main road then you're still screwed. On the Federal map our area is 100% broadband covered even though only those on that one road are covered.
This shouldn't be a surprise. This story has remained pretty much unchanged since broadband first became a thing. Rural dwellers have had a tough time with it forever.
Considering rural America isn't going away, they should just roll out fibre and invest in their next 50 to 100 years already...
And those rural communities by extension lack access to modern well paying hightech jobs - barring places like Chattanooga TN that have municipal 1gps fiber for example.
No good net, no good jobs, coincidence?
Half of the people that live on my street (suburb of the "DMV" area (DC, VA, MD)) where the average property value is 400k (for a townhouse) cant get broadband. The best they can get is sub 1MB DSL which one of them told me that they were told is being discontinued. Comcast wont run new lines they had some but they were cut about five years ago when an idiot hit a pole on the main road. Fios runs right by them but wont service them. Yet on the federal map? 100% coverage.
Our infrastructure sucks blue donkey balls.
So if I just payed $80 a month for their 60mbps internet package they would upgrade their service in the area and offer gb for $200 a month? And then would they expect me to upgrade because that's now available? No, the reason is because median income in the area is low and most can't afford $200 a month for internet, nevermind $60. Dialup was free or less than $10 a month. Yes, 10mbps is overpriced at $40 a month, and so is 20mbps broadband dsl.
Edit: here's a map showing median income near where I live...$20-40k a year. That's not just low, that's poverty level.
View attachment 103164
Yeah, unfortunately a cell plan is about the same or more in my area, and not unlimited unless you get the $60+ plan (and then, still not really unlimited). I can bundle home and mobile internet, but it'd end up costing even more (though not as much as if I got them separate). Cox probably has the best deal in the area (unless you can get lus), but only for the first 12 months, and I refuse to get on a contract that I plan to cancel or have to renegotiate as soon as it ends.I agree that it is overpriced. But the sad truth is that the companies don't feel that they could make a return on their investment in the area in what they consider a reasonable amount of time. Without knowing the projected subscription rate, that could totally be true. Most people have cell phones which they feel are impossible to live without. If they already have that, it makes complete sense to market the cell phone data/mobile hot spot philosophy to them. At the same time, I do not consider cell phone internet access to be worthy of being called broadband. I still believe in designing to the 5 nines rule for telecommunications and cell networks fail horribly in that regard.
Infrastructure costs are sometimes reasonable and sometimes crazy. All of the rural areas would need to be services by stringing cable up on the poles as many of the communications companies already have the right of ways secured and the necessary easements on the pole. Even with that advantage, I would guess cost would be in the $10,000+ per mile once you factor in all of the supporting costs. If you need to go underground and access right of ways and obtain easements, it becomes crazy. I was involved with LUS when they were getting their fiber to the home project designed back in 2005. There was a study to see what it would take to bury the power and communication lines along a stretch of West Congress, and it was over $1 million for about a 2000 ft stretch.
PS. It's a small world. I lived the first 22 or so years of my life in that zip code in Indian Bayou. Parents and brother are still there. I still think Acadiana is one of the best places on Earth with some of the best people.
Part of the problem is redefining broadband. The ISPs near my cabin stopped expanding DSL because 1.5-3mbs no longer met the definition of broadband leaving us with essentially no choices. Sure I couldn't support my hulu and netflix habit with it, but I would have been able to live and work there.
Now the only options are god awful Satellite packages with stingy data caps or dial up speeds. Or ridiculously expensive hotspots with stingy data caps. Neither of which are consistent enough to work remotely.
I hope the SpaceX system lives up to the hype, I would move in a heartbeat if I could get a decent connection.
Because my DSL will remain at 1mbps due to 0 competition, I pay for a 10GB (per month) plan for Satellite. I use about 500GB of data in reality. When within the 10GB cap, I get 50/3. When throttled I get 3/2.
It's not the same argument because it's not the same problem. The Fed "raising" tax dollars to expand basic electrical service into remote and sparsely populated areas doesn't equate to this situation where anyone can get satellite internet service which is perfectly capable of supporting information and education needs. No it's not the best, and Netflix won't be so great, but it get's the job done for what people need. And if anyone thinks the answer is to "raise" more tax dollars to push infrastructure to these areas I'd offer a much cheaper alternative, just subsidize their satellite internet bill instead, much cheaper.
Actually, no it isn't. Remember that every so often you need to launch new satellites into orbit; they don't stay up there forever. And I argue satellite doesn't even support todays bandwidth needs, let alone what they are going to be going forward.
So, you either subsidize FOREVER, or you just pay for the infrastructure once.
You are going to argue that satellite bandwidth isn't future-proof while Elon Musk is planning on putting over 4,400 of them into orbit for a long term world wide internet solution?
As long as the target consumer / user is the 16 million we are talking about who live in the sticks, I think the bandwidth will suffice.
Satellite simply does not have acceptable bandwidth/latency. It's literally worse then 56k AOL. 5G is a better option (I said "better", not "good"). Hell, even 2G is a better option (again, comparatively).
How much will it cost per month?
Unknown. At this point everyone is guessing but one of SpaceX's goals is making Internet affordable. Expected to be under $50 a month.
What kind of speeds can be expected for the average user?
Unknown. Nothing has been announced at this early stage. It is still a long way off before they start listing prices, access and speeds. SpaceX mentioned gigabit speeds.
Maybe for you it's no acceptable. For someone who has nothing, a little latency is not an issue as long as the data makes it there and we are not talking current satellite capability like what Hughes Net offers. Elon Musk's offering is a step up from that and was listed above;
Yes, these are very rough estimates, hopes, goals. I can't say that they will ever get there. But I would rather see support for this than support to push out existing tech to fixed areas that will just lead to more of the same bullshit from the same corporate actors.