|
I have a lot to say on this subject I think, but I'm going to try to keep it relevant.
Geography is a challenge when it comes to serving up rural broadband, but maybe not as much of a challenge as some people think. In most cases, wireless broadband is an option where traditional copper or fibre-based solutions aren't viable -- and those copper-based solutions would be viable in a lot more places if the major companies responsible for these things (Bell and Telus here in Canada, Verizon and AT&T down south) were willing to invest in areas where the rate of return isn't as high. Why bother pumping millions into expanding your DSL coverage into rural areas, when you can get a much better return by buidling out fibre or VDSL service in the city?
The US government is pushing wireless as a solution for the problem, but I'm not convinced. Anyone who uses internet on their cell phone already knows that wireless connections aren't the most reliable ever, and the throughput is likely to be a bottleneck again in a few years anyway. Supporting a buildout of hard infrastructure would be a much better option, but it comes down to the same thing again. Who wants to spend that much?
Don't trust AT&T when they tell you it costs too much. They're not a neutral party.
__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said
- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame
|